Tyconius' Theological Reception of 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 (History of Biblical Exegesis, 4) 9783161610240, 9783161616341, 3161610245

Citation preview

History of Biblical Exegesis Editors Mark W. Elliott (Glasgow) Jennie Grillo (Notre Dame, IN) David Lincicum (Notre Dame, PA) Benjamin Schliesser (Bern, CH)

4

Karol Piotr Kulpa

Tyconius’ Theological Reception of 2 Thessalonians 2:3–12

Mohr Siebeck

Karol Piotr Kulpa, born 1981; 2009 Baccalaureate in Theology, Salesian Pontifical University, Jerusalem; 2014 Licentiate in Sacred Scripture, Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome; 2014−17 Visiting Professor of New Testament, Studium Theologicum Salesianum; 2021 Doctorate in Biblical Theology, University of Regensburg; since 2021 Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Theology, Salesian Pontifical University, Rome. orcid.org/0000-0002-3334-2977

ISBN 978-3-16-161024-0 / eISBN 978-3-16-161634-1 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-161634-1 ISSN 2748-0313 / eISSN 2748-0321 (History of Biblical Exegesis) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. © 2022  Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany.  www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen, and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

For my beloved parents Barbara and Stanisław

Acknowledgments This work began as a dissertation under Tobias Nicklas at the Faculty of Catholic Theology at the University of Regensburg. I am very grateful for his great deal of support, guidance and assistance throughout this project. Furthermore, I would like to thank several scholars: Harald Buchinger and Andreas Merkt from the University of Regensburg, Joseph Verheyden from the Catholic University of Leuven, Jens Schröter from the Humboldt-University in Berlin, Jörg Frey from the University of Zurich, Francisco Sánchez Leyva from the Salesian Pontifical University in Rome, and Lorne Zelyck from the University of Alberta in Edmonton, whose imparting of knowledge and wisdom during my research contributed greatly to the outcome of this work. I should also like to express my appreciation to my external reader, Ian Boxall from the Catholic University of America, who gave critical feedback and useful recommendations to bring the work to publication. Many thanks to all participants of the Novum Testamentum Patristicum and the Beyond Canon Collaborative Research Groups whose sharing of their own projects provided many fresh insights and valuable suggestions for my indagation. To conclude, I cannot forget to thank my parents and family, my Salesian community and the community of St. Joseph sisters in Regensburg and all those who in various ways helped me carry out this project.

Table of Contents Acknowledgments....................................................................................... VII Abbreviations............................................................................................. XIII References to Works of Tyconius............................................................. XVII English Translations...................................................................................XIX Liber Regularum.........................................................................................XIX Expositio Apocalypseos..............................................................................XIX Secondary Sources......................................................................................XIX

Introduction................................................................................. 1 Chapter I: R  eception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception................................................. 11 1. Conceptual Elements of the RecepXVtion History.................................... 11 1.1. Transformative and Performative Effectiveness of Reception..........13 1.2. Productive Process of Reception......................................................15 2. Different Modes of Biblical Reception......................................................18 3. Historical Criticism and Reception History...............................................21 3.1 Evolution and Crisis of the Historical-Critical Method.....................22 3.2 Biblical Criticism and Reception History: Compatibility or Incompatibility?................................................................................26 4. Tyconius and Biblical Reception...............................................................30 4.1 Notes on Tyconius and His Works....................................................31 4.2 Hermeneutical Elements of Tyconius’ Reception..............................39 4.2.1 Historical Level.......................................................................42 4.2.2 Literary Level...........................................................................44 4.2.3 Theological Level.....................................................................47 Summary.................................................................................................49

X

Table of Contents

Chapter II: H  istorical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12........................................................ 51 1. The Background and the Beginnings of the Donatist-Catholic Controversy...............................................................................................52 1.1 Pre-Constantinian Church.................................................................52 1.2 Constantinian Church........................................................................62 2. The Escalation of Violence and Persecution..............................................68 2.1 Circumcellions..................................................................................69 2.2 Macarian Persecution........................................................................72 2.3 The Reign of Julian...........................................................................77 3. The Consolidation of the Separation Between Two Churches...................79 3.1 Parmenian and Optatus of Milevis....................................................81 3.2 The Donatist Collecta........................................................................84 3.3 The Notion of the South....................................................................86 Summary.................................................................................................88

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World by Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12............................. 91 1. Members of the Lord’s Body.....................................................................93 1.1 Homo peccati ...................................................................................93 1.2 Antichristus.....................................................................................103 1.3 Filius exterminii.............................................................................. 110 1.4 Ostendens se quod ipse est Deus..................................................... 119 2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body...........................................128 2.1 Mysterium facinoris........................................................................129 2.2 Detineat/detinet . ............................................................................148 2.3 Secundum operationem Satanae......................................................156 3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body...................................................164 3.1 Discessio ........................................................................................166 3.2 De medio.........................................................................................181 3.3. Adventus Domini...........................................................................199 3.4. In sua incredulitate morientur........................................................207 Summary.....................................................................................................210

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12.................................................. 213 1. Bipartition of the Church’s Reality...........................................................216

Table of Contents

XI

1.1 Church as a Dynamic and Processual Reality..................................217 1.2 Church as the Spiritual and Universal Reality.................................220 2. Charity as the Response to Hatred............................................................223 2.1 Union of Charity Between the Head and Its Body...........................224 2.2 Church as the Mediator of Charity...................................................226 3. Process of Conversion Towards the Good................................................227 4. Bipartition in the Nature of Human being................................................232 4.1 The Mystery of Being Human..........................................................233 4.2 Self-awareness of the Member of the Church..................................236 5. Faith and Reason as a Response to God’s Word.......................................239 5.1 Means for Searching the Spirit’s Ways............................................240 5.2 The Holy Scriptures as the Mediator of Divine Mysteries...............243 6. Process of Conversion Towards the Truth................................................246 7. Bipartition of the Eschatological Temporality..........................................248 7.1 The Present and Future of the Church..............................................250 7.2 Sacred and Profane Temporality......................................................253 8. Hope as the Response to Desperateness...................................................255 8.1 The Sin of Hopelessness..................................................................255 8.2 The Temporality as the Mediator of the Pedagogical Eschatology......258 9. Process of Conversion Towards the Beauty..............................................260

Conclusion................................................................................ 265 Bibliography............................................................................. 273 New Testament.............................................................................................273 Editions and Translations of Tyconius’ Works 273 Ancient Sources and Translations.................................................................274 Secondary Literature....................................................................................278

Index of References.................................................................. 295 Old Testament...............................................................................................295 New Testament.............................................................................................296 Ancient Sources............................................................................................300

Index of Modern Authors........................................................ 309 Subject Index............................................................................311

Abbreviations AAS Acta Apostolicae Sedis AB Anchor Bible AnBib Analecta Biblica ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers AmJT American Journal of Theology Arch.Europ. Sociol. Archives Européennes de Sociologie ASE Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi ATJ AugStud Augustinian Studies AUSS Andrews University Semitic Studies BA Bibliothèque Augustinienne BBC Blackwell Bible Commentaries BDAG A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, eds., 3rd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2000 BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament BHF Bonner Historische Forschungen BibInt Biblical Interpretation BibS Biblische Studien BIWL Bibliographies and Indexes in World Literature BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries BollClass Bollettino dei Classici BP Biblioteca Patristica BSac Bibliotheca Sacra BZ Biblische Zeitschrift BzHT Beiträge zur Historischen Theologie BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft CA Collectanea Augustiniana CCCM Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis CCSL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina CCT Corpus Christianorum in Translation CH Corpus Haereseologicum ChHist. Church History Comp Compostellanum CPhMA Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi CRES Christian Roman Empire Series CrSt Cristianesimo nella storia

XIV CSEL CWL DBS

Abbreviations

Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Collected Works of Bernard Longergan Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplément, vol. 6: Mystères – Passion, L. Pirot, A. Robert, H. Cazelles, J. Briend, and M. Quesnel, eds., Paris: Letouzey & Ané 1960 DS Dictionnaire de spiritualité ascétique et mystique: Doctrine et histoire, Marcel Viller and Ferdinand Cavallera, eds., Paris: Beauchesne 1991 DThC Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, vol. 14:2, Alfred Vacant et al., eds., Paris: Letouzey & Ané 1941 EA Expositio Apocalypseos EBC The Expositor’s Bible Commentary EC Early Christianity EKK Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament EThSt Erfurter Theologische Studien Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller GCS HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology HTR Harvard Theological Review HTS Hervormde Teologiese Studies HUT Hermenetische Untersuchungen zur Theologie International Critical Commentary ICC ICS Illinois Classical Studies IDB The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, George A. Buttrick ed., Nashville: Abingdon 1962 Journal of Biblical Literature JBL JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies JRS Journal of Roman Studies JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JThS.NS Journal of Theological Studies, New Series JTS Journal of Theological Studies KEK Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament Loeb Classical Library LCL LNTS Library of New Testaments Studies Liber Regularum LR MNTC Moffatt New Testament Commentary New American Commentary NAC NCBC New Century Bible Commentary NDBT New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, Graeme Goldsworthy, and Steve Carter, eds., Leicester: InterVarsity Press 2000 NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum NRSV New Revised Standard Version Novum Testamentum NT NTCS New Testament Commentary Series

Abbreviations

XV

NTD Das Neue Testament Deutsch NTG Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th edition, Kurt Aland et al., eds., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2012 NTP Novum Testamentum Patristicum NTR New Testament Readings NTS New Testament Studies NTT Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift OBC Oxford Bible Commentary OSA Œuvres de Saint Augustin ParPass La Parola del passato PBGALT Paradosis. Beiträge zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur und Theologie PL Patrologia Latina PLS Patrologiae Latinae Supplementum PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary PTMS Princeton Theological Monograph Series Hodayot (Hymns of Thanksgiving) QH QM Milhamah (War Scroll) Revue Bénédictine RBén REA Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques REAug Revue des Études Augustiniennes Recherches Augustiniennes RechAug Revue des Sciences Religieuses RevScRel RES Review of Ecumenical Studies RHE Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique RNT Regensburger Neues Testament Revue Théologique de Louvain RTL SBL Society of Biblical Literature SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien SC Sources Chrétiennes SEAug Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum SJT Scottish Journal of Theology SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary SRC SScr Sacra Scripta SSEJC Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity SSR Studi Storico Religiosi SThGG Studien zur Theologie und Geistesgeschichte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts Studia Rosenthaliana StudRos Thf Theoforum TS Theological Studies TSTP Tübinger Studien zur Theologie und Philosophie Translated Text for Historians TTH TTHC Translated Texts for Historians, Contexts TUGACL Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur TZTh Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie VC Vigiliae Christianae

XVI

Abbreviations

VL Vetus Latina VT Vetus Testamentum WBC World Biblical Commentary WC Wisdom Commentary WSA The Works of Saint Augustine WTJ Westminster Theological Journal WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZB Zürcher Bibelkommentare ZECNT Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament ZNW Z  eitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

References to Works of Tyconius E.g., LR VII, 14.218–19.1–4 – the Roman numeral refers to the book of the Liber Regularum, the following number(s) to the paragraph, and the superscript with or without apostrophe to the line in the text of Ticonio, Libro de Las Reglas, Introducción, texto crítico, traducción y notas de Juan José Ayán Calvo, Fuentes Patrísticas 23 (Madrid: Editorial Ciudad Nueva, 2009). It is the latest critical edition of the Liber Regularum which has its origins in the work begun by the Spanish scholar Eugenio Romero Pose who died in 2007. The work has been completed by Ayán Calvo. The division of the paragraphs is adopted from the edition of Jean-Marc Vercruysse in the Sources chrétiennes. The critical apparatus includes the variants of the various manuscripts and some testimonies of the indirect tradition. The editors limit themselves to comparisons with the previous critical edition of Francis C. Burkitt (1894, rep. 1967). The text is also accompanied by an apparatus of references to other authors that cannot always be considered as sources or literary dependencies, but rather as parallels that can help explain the text and show its impact (see Ayán Calvo, Libro de Las Reglas, 58–59). E.g., EA V, 192–3 – the Roman numeral refers to the section of the Expositio Apocalypseos, the following numeral to the paragraph, and the superscript to the line in the text of Tyconi Afri Expositio Apocalypseos, ed. Roger Gryson, CCSL 107A (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011). A cursive font in all the quotations from LR or EA refers to the biblical texts quoted or alluded to, even if it is not indicated as so in Calvo’s edition of LR. The same applies to Gryson’s edition of the EA .

English Translations All translations of Greek text are my own unless otherwise noted. For English citations of the biblical texts I follow the NRSV. Liber Regularum Unless otherwise stated I follow the English translation of the Latin text of the Liber Regularum in Leslie D. Anderson, The Book of Rules of Tyconius: An Introduction and Translation, Ph.D. diss. (Louisville, KY: South Baptist Theological Seminary, 1974). I have also consulted the English translation in William S. Babcock, Tyconius: The Book of Rules, SBL: Texts and Translations 31 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989), Spanish translation in Ticonio, Libro de Las Reglas, Introducción, texto crítico, traducción y notas of Juan José Ayán Calvo, Bilingual Edition (Madrid: Editorial Ciudad Nueva, 2009), and Italian translation in Luisa and Deniela Leoni, eds. Ticonio, Sette regole per la Scrittura (Bologna: Centro Editoriale Dehoniano, 1997). Expositio Apocalypseos Unless otherwise stated I follow the English translation of the Latin text of the Expositio Apocalypseos in Francis X. Gumerlock, Tyconius: Exposition of the Apocalypse, intr. and notes David C. Robinson (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2017). I have also consulted the German translation in Tyconius und Apringius. Zwei alte lateinische Kommentare zur Offenbarung des Johannes. Deutsche Übersetzung des Tyconius-Kommentares, trans. Albrecht und Erika von Blumenthal (Berlin: Logos Verlag, 2018). Secondary Sources For foreign language works available translations have been used or my own translation has been provided.

Introduction Everyone who studies Scriptures sooner or later realises how great the range of hermeneutical problems is within biblical studies. The main problem concerns the interaction between text and reader and, therefore, such issues like text production, text mediation and text reception. Increasingly noticeable, the shift in scholars’ interest from questions relating to the text’s form, content, or ‘original settings’ to those concerned with the Bible’s wider impact on individuals, cultures, or societies prompts us to give more attention to the reception history of Scripture. The apocalyptic literature, for example, with its symbolism, cryptic language and dramatic scenario is a suitable material for such study, because its various interpretations and receptions over the centuries opens our eyes for a fascinating journey of the biblical texts. The passage which fits our endeavour is 2 Thess 2:3–12. According to Charles Holman, this pericope demonstrates that in the first-century church there was a custom of re-reading and christological interpretation of traditional Jewish apocalyptic motifs.1 The apocalyptic nature of 2 Thess 2:3–122 and its complex content or, in other words, its many cruces interpretum, raise various questions in an ordinary reader’s mind, who usually, after a while, leaves it aside perplexed, realising that certain issues of this prophecy remain unanswerable. Even the great church father, Augustine, wrestling with this passage, stated: “I frankly confess that the meaning of this completely escapes me.”3 Beverly Gaventa concludes the same, but put it in a more poetic way: Readers of the New Testament stumbling for the first time into the middle of 2 Thessalonians may be forgiven if they feel like Alice tumbling down a dark hole in Wonderland. The residents of this Wonderland are new and mysterious, their relationship to one another unclear and the stranger responds with a sense of disorientation.4

See Charles L. Holman, Till Jesus Comes. Origins of Christian Apocalyptic Expectation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 103–110. 2 “Nothing in the Pauline letters is closer to the genre of apocalypse.” James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 304. 3 Augustine, The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 20.19. 4 Beverly R. Gaventa, First and Second Thessalonians, Interpretation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 107; Michael W. Holmes, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 228 notes that this passage is “by common consent one of the most obscure in the Pauline corpus.” 1

2

Introduction

Many church fathers, ancient authors, and contemporary scholars have attempted to solve the unclear issues of 2 Thess 2:3–12, proposing very diverse ways of reading this passage.5 In this book, we shall focus on a relatively unknown, maverick theologian and exegete, Tyconius, whose spiritual approach to 2 Thess 2:3–12 is original and suggests directions in the search for theological insights. Before we enter into the world of his reception it will be useful to have a general survey of the passage and of some scholarly discussion about it. The author of 2 Thessalonians 26 addresses the misconception of the Thessalonian community on the parousia of Christ (vv. 1–2) instructing it that the “Day of the Lord” is a future event (vv. 3–12), not as some believed as already a reality described in the words ὡς ὅτι ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου (v. 2b). 5 See, for example, Anthony C. Thiselton, 1 and 2 Thessalonians Through the Centuries, ed. Judith Kovacs (Oxford: Blackwell, 2010). 6 The dubious authorship of 2 Thessalonians has provoked an unfished discussion among the scholars. It started in 1801 with Johann E. Christian Schmidt who noticed inconsistencies between 1 and 2 Thessalonians. In 1903 William Wrede argued against authenticity of 2 Thessalonians (see Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians. A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 17–19). Before Wolfgang Trilling’s work Untersuchungen zum Zweiten Thessalonicherbrief, EThSt, 27 (Leipzig: St. Benno, 1972), the main evidence against Pauline authorship was based on comparing two different eschatologies of 1 Thess 5:1–11 (no timetable of events preceding the parousia) and 2 Thess 2:3–12 (concrete though unclear description of scenario before the parousia). Trilling’s study brought new arguments against Pauline authorship grounded on style, form criticism and theology. They were opposed by Wanamaker who defended Paul as the author of the letter (see The Epistles to the Thessalonians, 1990: 21–38). Apart from Wanamaker some other scholars arguing for the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians: Béda Rigaux, Saint Paul: Les épitres aux Thessaloniciens (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1956); Ernest Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, Reprinted with additional bibliography, BNTC (London: Black, 1977); I. Howard Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983); Robert Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986); Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 32B (New York: Doubleday, 2000); Gregory K. Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, NTCS (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003); Ivor H. Jones, The Epistles to the Thessalonians (Peterborough: Epworth, 2005); Ben Witherington III, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, SRC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006); Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). Among scholars disputing or denying Pauline authorship are mainly German scholars. Apart from Trelling see, for example, Willi Marxsen, Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher, ZB 11.2 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982); Franz Laub, Erster und zweiter Thessalonicherbrief, 2nd ed. (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1988); Eckart Reinmuth, “Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher,” in Die Briefe an die Philliper, Thessalonicher und an Philemon, N. Walter, E. Reinmuth und P. Lampe, NTD 8.2. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998); see also Maarten J.J. Menken, 2 Thessalonians, NTR (London: Routledge, 1994); Tobias Nicklas, Der zweite Thessalonicherbrief, KEK 10:2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019). The authorship of the letter and the scholarly dispute about it does not affect our study of reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12 by Tyconius, therefore, we neither confirm nor reject Paul as the author of the letter and simply speak of “the author.”

Introduction

3

The interpretation of this statement determines the overall understanding of the entire letter. Most scholars presuppose that v. 2 characterises the “Day of the Lord” in futuristic terms. Mary Ann Beavis notes that it can be a reaction to “a contemporary doctrine that living believers had already spiritually ascended to the ‘heavenly places’ with Christ, as expressed in the Deutero-Pauline letters Colossians and Ephesians (Col 3:4; Eph 2:6).”7 Tobias Nicklas and Michael Sommer, criticising two monographs by Norbert Baumert and Maria-Irma Seewann who claim that 2 Thess 2:2 is not concerned with matters of parousia, argue for the text’s pseudepigraphy. Nicklas and Sommer, analysing the context of vv. 1–2 in light of a parallel in Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel, develop their own interpretation of the statement, from which emerges the possibility that the “Day of the Lord” can become apparent to everyone not in the same way.8 The “Day of the Lord,” however, cannot come before the “rebellion” (v. 3b: ἡ ἀποστασία), along with the Revelation of the “Man of Lawlessness,” (v. 3c: ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας) whose identification is one among various problems of the above pericope. He is also labelled as the “Lawless One” (v. 8a: ὁ ἄνομος) and the “Son of Destruction” (v. 3c: ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας), who is presented as an arrogant being (v. 4a: ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος) to the point of establishing himself in the temple of God and declaring himself to be God (v. 4b: ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός). At present, however, he is restrained by something (v. 6a: τὸ κατέχον) or someone (v. 7b: ὁ κατέχων), that is, held back from being openly revealed, but he continues to work through the mystery of lawlessness (v. 7a: τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας). He is the agent of Satan (v. 9a: οὗ ἐστιν ἡ παρουσία κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν τοῦ σατανᾶ) and comes with power, false signs, and miracles (v. 9b: ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει καὶ σημείοις καὶ τέρασιν ψεύδους), brings wicked deception (v. 10a: καὶ ἐν πάσῃ ἀπάτῃ ἀδικίας) and those who follow him will perish (v. 10b: τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις). God is sending (v. 11: πέμπει) a deceiving force (ἐνέργεια πλάνης) that brings error on them and uses the deceit of the “Man of Lawlessness” in order to ultimately defeat him and his followers who do not believe the truth, but consent to iniquity (v. 12: εὐδοκήσαντες τῇ ἀδικίᾳ). Jesus, who is the future judge par excellence, will destroy the “Lawless One” and make him ineffectual (καταργήσει) by the appearance of his parousia (v. 8: ἡ ἐπιφάνεια τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ).9 7 Florence M. Gillman, Mary Ann Beavis, and HyeRan Kim-Cragg, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, gen. ed. Barbara E. Reid, WC 52 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2017), 141. 8 See Tobias Nicklas and Michael Sommer, “‘Der Tag des Herrn ist schon da’ (2 Thess 2:2b) – Ein Schlüsselproblem zum Verständnis des 2. Thessalonicherbriefs,” HTS 71 (2015): 1–10 (Art. 2874 – http:/dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v71i1.2874). 9 The use of the definite article in the important concepts of the passage (ἡ ἀποστασία, ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, τὸ κατέχον, τὸ μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας, ὁ κατέχων, ὁ ἄνομος, ἡ ἀγάπη, τῆς ἀληθείας, τό ψεῦδος, ἡ ἀλήθεια) indicates that the addresses of the letter are to some degree familiar with them (cf. v. 5) or the terms have the connotation

4

Introduction

The parousia of the “Lawless One” (cf. v. 9a: ἡ παρουσία) is clearly presented in this passage as “a parody of the parousia of Christ”10 and seems to refer to two Satanic beasts in Rev 13, which imitate some features of the Lamb of God. As expressed by Robert Charles, “Thus as the Revelation of God culminated in Christ, so the manifestation of evil will culminate in Antichrist, whose parousia (2 Thess 2:9) is the Satanic counterfeit of the true Messiah.”11 For Thessalonians, as Edgar Krentz notes, the salvation (v. 10b: εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι) is vindication at the parousia of the Lord Jesus.12 Furthermore, he points out that 2 Thessalonians does not present abstract or theoretical theology; it is rather a response to human need, hope, and aspiration in a time of persecution. The fundamental conviction that God is a God of justice who will vindicate his suffering church underlies this theology and gives it unity.13

Jesus in 2 Thessalonians is the κύριος, the agent of God’s ultimate vengeance, whom Frederick Danker and Robert Jewett describe as an apocalyptic benefactor (cf. 2 Thess 2:13–3:5).14 A fixed apocalyptic schema which we find in this letter assures a peaceful life of the community that otherwise could be shaken by apocalyptic enthusiasm.15 Hans LaRondelle observes that 2 Thessalonians 2 forms an important link between the synoptic Apocalypse and the large-scale Apocalypse of John. The basic chronological order of the prophetic events presented in 2 Thess 2:3–12 “can be in harmony with, and complementary to, one another.”16 As well, Fritz Röcker demonstrates that passages from the Thessalonian Letters “are connected with the synoptic Apocalypse down to individual linguistic parallels.”17 Although neither of the Thessalonians Letters contains explicit quotations from the Old Testament, they undoubtedly refer to various terms and motifs of the Jewish Scriptures. The comparison of some key linguistic expressions in 2 Thessalonians 2 with some passages from the of ultimacy. See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 217–18; 222–25. 10 J. Terence Forestell, in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, et. al. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968), 235. 11 Robert H. Charles, Eschatology: The Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, Judaism and Christianity: A Critical History (New York: Schocken, 1963), 439. 12 See Edgar Krentz, “Traditions Held Fast: Theology and Fidelity in 2 Thessalonians,” in The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. Raymond F. Collins (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 509. 13 Ibid., 505. 14 See Frederick Danker and Robert Jewett, “Jesus as the Apocalyptic Benefactor in Second Thessalonians,” in Collins, The Thessalonian Correspondence, 486–98. 15 Cf. Helmut Koester, “From Paul’s Eschatology to the Apocalyptic Schema of 2 Thessalonians,” in Collins, The Thessalonian Correspondence, 457. 16 Hans K. LaRondelle, “Paul’s Prophetic Outline in 2 Thessalonians 2,” AUSS 21:1 (1983): 61. 17 Fritz W. Röcker, Belial und Katechon. Eine Untersuchung zu 2 Thess 2,1–12 und 1 Thess 4,13–5,11, WUNT 2:262 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 5.

Introduction

5

prophets Daniel, Ezekiel, and Isaiah strongly suggests that the author of the letter describes the “Lawless One” by combining three OT Revelations about anti-God powers: the rise and desecrations of the Anti-Messiah in Dan 7:25, 8:10–13, 11:36–37; the demonic character in the self-exaltation and self-divinisation of the kings of Tyre and Babylon in Ezek 28:2.6.9, and Isa 14:13–14; and the final annihilation of the wicked one by the glorious appearance of the royal Messiah, in Isa 11:4. An interesting observation is proposed by Marvin Pate who recognises in the divine struggle between the “Lawless One” and Christ depicted in 2 Thess 2:1–12 Adamic theology. He believes that the passage presents the Urzeit – Endzeit (the beginning – the end) schema in which the serpent in the garden (cf. Gen 3) is eschatologically personified in the figure of the Antichrist, who attempts to oppose Christ’s fight for recovering Adam’s lost dominion and glory. This apocalyptic theme is, according to Pate, connected with the theme of the suffering people of God who will share Christ’s, the true Adam’s, future glory.18 Sigve Tonstad observes that the author of 2 Thessalonians is not merely featuring Old Testament passages in a metaphorical or typological sense. The evil power that is to have a personal manifestation before the coming of Jesus, traces its roots to a source that is primordial as to its origin and personal as to its cause.19

This Old Testament perspective reflected in the myth of cosmic rebellion (cf. Isa 14:12–20 and Ezek 28:12–19), according to Tonstad, “is harnessed to explain the delay of the parousia and the eschatological unveiling of evil, understood as a process that will afflict the church from within.”20 This preliminary information and scholarly overview paints for us a horizon of this challenging pericope, of which the worldview is “thoroughly apocalyptic and envisions a conflict between good and evil that has a cosmic scope.”21 We shall explore 2 Thess 2:3–12 more as we go through this book and observe its reception by Tyconius. Anthony Thiselton is right when he notices that some receptions shape the “pre-understandings of subsequent generations of interpreters” or have “held particular influence in theology and the life of the church.”22 Tyconius’ reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12 certainly belongs to this category and should not be overlooked. This book will hopefully remind the academic world about his important contribution to the fields of biblical and theological studies and let 18 See C. Marvin Pate, The Glory of Adam and the Afflictions of the Righteous: Pauline Suffering in Context (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1993), 291–312. 19 Sigve K. Tonstad, “The Restrainer Removed: A Truly Alarming Thought (2 Thess 2:1–12),” HBT 29 (2007): 141. 20 Ibid., 141. 21 J. Christiaan Beker, Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel: The Coming Triumph of God (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 14–15. 22 Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), 196.

6

Introduction

us see him not only through the eyes of Augustine, but through a close study of his extant texts. It is worth noting that Augustine initially had many reservations about the value of Tyconius’ writings, but these reservations decreased during his episcopacy. The bishop of Hippo refers to Tyconius several times in his writings, for example, in Contra Epistulam Parmeniani,23 De doctrina Christiana,24 or in Epistula 41,25 93 (43–44),26 and 249,27 but he was not always able to understand Tyconius’ hermeneutical theories. Augustine’s strategy of fighting the Donatists, based on getting closer to an alliance with the Roman Empire, unjustly made Tyconius a heretic. We should be grateful to Augustine for letting us remember Tyconius, who otherwise could be forgotten, but we also have to recognise how much Augustine has benefited from the wisdom of his older fellow citizen and theologian.28 In this study, we shall see that 2 Thess 2:3–12 plays a crucial and decisive role in Tyconius’ interpretation of Scripture and verses 3 and 7 become for him his world-constructing verses. On the themes that he draws from them he builds his vision of the church, the human being, and ultimate realties. We shall discover it while examining his reception of this passage in the Liber Regularum and in the recently reconstructed text of the Expositio Apocalypseos. Based on that analysis, we shall be introduced to an innovative structure of reception history articulated in three levels: historical context, literary themes, and theological insights. This book intends to fill a gap in the research on the importance of 2 Thess 2:3–12 in the North African context at the end of the fourth century. It is hoped that a holistic and structural approach to the reception history presented in this work can become relevant for biblical and theological scholars who deal with the reception history of the New Testament texts. The first to notice a particular role of 2 Thessalonians 2 in Tyconius’ Liber Regularum was an American scholar Pamela Bright (1937–2012). She notes that this letter, although not quoted as often by Tyconius as the letters to the Romans or to the Galatians, plays a significant role, especially in his presentation of the Antichrist. She mentions also that the two phrases in medio (“in See 1.1.1–1.2.2 and 2.13.31 (CSEL 51.19–20 and 83). See 3.30–37 (CCSL 32.102–16). 25 See CSEL 34:2.83. 26 See CSEL 34:2.486–87. 27 See PL 33.1065. 28 See, for example, Peter Consensus, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography, 2nd ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 269; Catherine Brown Tkacz, “Typology,” in Saint Augustine through the Ages, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999): 855. Pamela Bright discusses the ways in which Augustine adapted Tyconius’ rules for his own purposes. See her article “‘The Prepondering Influence of Augustine’: A Study of the Epitomes of the Books of Rules of the Donatist Tyconius,” in Augustine and the Bible. The Bible through the Ages, ed. and trans. Pamela Bright, vol. 2 (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999): 103–18 (orig. pub. Saint Augustin et la Bible. Bible de tous les Temps, ed. Anne-Marie La Bonnardière, vol. 3 [Paris: Beauchesne, 1986]). 23 24

Introduction

7

the midst”) and de medio (“from the midst” [cf. 2 Thess 2:7c]) and the motif of mysterium facinoris (“mystery of iniquity” [cf. 2 Thess 2:7a]) are crucial for Tyconius’ ecclesiology.29 More than that, she shows that the theme of the mysterium facinoris has a structural function in the Liber Regularum: Positioned at the point of transition between one rule and the next, the theme of the ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the Church is integrated into the argument of the next rule. In this way Tyconius not only achieves the pedagogical and stylistic purpose of alerting the reader to the next stage of the argument, but he deepens this theme as he moves through the frame of the seven rules.30

Her observation is an important impulse for the present study, because it directs our attention to the ecclesiological dimension of Tyconius’ exegesis and prompts us to verify the centrality of the theme of the mysterium facinoris in his Expositio Apocalypseos. Bright, in her studies, considers the background of the debates and schisms among the African churches in the third and fourth centuries and indicates some factors which initiated such tensions like, for example, the problem of recognition of the “mystery of iniquity,” the signs of the Antichrist’s presence, the locus of evil, or the question of the separation of the just from the unjust. She explains Tyconius’ ecclesiological point, who in opposition to his fellow-Donatists, maintains that evil is enthroned not outside but inside the church, and the separation between the good and the evil members of the community will not take place until the Judgment which has already been revealed in the Scriptures. She emphasises that the goal of Tyconius’ scriptural interpretation is to present a subtle working of the Spirit in the church who, on the one hand, encourages her, but, on the other hand, admonishes her and calls her to repentance. The Spirit reveals that lovelessness and separateness are signs of the “mystery of iniquity.”31 Another important scholar who influences this work is Eugenio Romero-Pose (1949–2007). He analyses the importance of 2 Thess 2:7 in both the Liber Regularum and the Expositio Apocalypseos in light of the eighth century Commentary on the Apocalypse written by the Spanish monk Beatus from Liébana.32 Romero-Pose notices an important eschatological dimension of this verse in the context of the end of the fourth century in Northern Africa and its influence on the idea of “Antichrist.” For Tyconius, as we will further discuss, See Pamela Bright, The Book of Rules of Tyconius. Its Purpose and Inner Logic (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988), 42, 49, 142, 155. This book is a rewriting of Bright’s doctoral dissertation entitled, Liber Regularum Tyconii: A Study of the Hermeneutical Theory of Tyconius, Theologian and Exegete of the North African Tradition, and presented in 1987 at the University of Notre Dame. 30 Ibid., 115. 31 See Pamela Bright, “The Church and the ‘Mystery of Iniquity’: Old Testament Prophecy in Fourth Century African Exegesis,” Consensus 23 (1997): 39–49. 32 See Eugenio Romero-Pose, “2 Tes 2,7 en la literatura donatista,” Burgense 37 (1996): 247–63. 29

8

Introduction

his understanding of the term “Antichrist” is parallel to the literary motif of homo peccati (cf. 2 Thess 2:3c). Similar to Bright, Romero-Pose also notices the significance of the phrases in medio / de medio and recognises their applicability to Tyconius’ theology. Kevin Hughes, the historical theologian, explaining Tyconius’ spiritual exegesis of 2 Thessalonians 2,33 suggests that Tyconius’ interpretation of this biblical text in the Liber Regularum is a response to the problems of the North African Church. Hughes observes that Tyconius consults 2 Thessalonians 2 for his hermeneutical insights, especially in dealing with the theme of the bipartite church and uses different elements scattered throughout the text in order to create an innovative typology suitable for explaining ecclesiological problems. Without doubt, Hughes, like the previously mentioned scholars, stresses both the ecclesiological and eschatological dimensions of Tyconius’ theology. It is also worth mentioning the young historical theologian David Robinson who recognises a particular importance of the literary motif of mysterium facinoris in Tyconius’ interpretation of the Book of Revelation. He considers the present activity, restraint, and future Revelation of this mystery as dominant themes of Tyconius’ exegesis.34 The present book proposes, along with ecclesiological and eschatological dimensions, the anthropological one, because, as we shall see, it is the human being who is at the centre of the present life of the church and it is the human being who in the church defines his or her eschatological future. During the development of the argument, it should become clearer that the anthropological dimension has a central and ingenious place in the theological systematic application of Tyconius. Undoubtedly, further investigation of the multifaceted texts of the African theologian can result in an appreciation of other theological dimensions like, for example, pneumatology or Christology, but in this work, we shall limit ourselves to the ones mentioned above. A systematic theology requires an identification of its systemic nucleus. In the structure of the present study, we understand reception as such a nucleus which is composed of historical, literary and theological levels. From the fact that the systemic nucleus is inclusive and dynamic, we assume that the reception justifies the unity of the three above-mentioned levels, and we will notice it in the course of reading. In other words, the structure of the work reflects the methodological process. 33 Cf. Kevin L. Hughes, Constructing Antichrist: Paul, Biblical Commentary, and the Development of Doctrine in the Early Middle Ages (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005), 82–94. 34 David C. Robinson is the author of the introduction and notes of Tyconius: Exposition of the Apocalypse, translated into English by Francis X. Gumerlock (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2017) from the Latin edition of Roger Gryson who reconstructed Tyconii Afri Expositio Apocalypseos, CCSL 107A (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011). See introduction and p. 82, n. 150.

Introduction

9

The aim of the first chapter is twofold. Firstly, we shall identify the epistemological elements of the reception history, briefly discuss its relation to the historical-critical method and attempt to advocate a reconciliation and collaboration between both approaches. Secondly, we examine Tyconius’ hermeneutics, the understanding of which is indispensable for following his interpretative logic of biblical texts, especially 2 Thess 2:3–12. Both endeavours are related, because it is precisely the reception of the Bible that helps Tyconius to interpret his historical context, and at the same time, the hermeneutics which he applies guarantee him conditions for biblical reception. The second chapter focuses on the historical context of Tyconius which becomes for him an impulse for the reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12. By analysing the historical situation of the fourth century North African church, we shall ‘put ourselves in Tyconius’ shoes’ and attempt to understand the factors that pushed him to approach this passage in his own specific way. We shall, therefore, examine some historical facts of the so-called Donatist-Catholic35 controversy in Northern Africa and its consequences, namely persecutions, martyrdom, and separatist expectations, which should help us to better see the encounter of horizons between Tyconius as a reader and 2 Thess 2:3–12 as a text. In the third chapter we make a dia-textual examination of the Liber Regularum and the Expositio Apocalypseos by identifying all traces of reception, namely cases in which Tyconius cites, alludes to, or echoes 2 Thess 2:3–12. They are organised in thematic groups, taking into consideration their contexts within the dynamic of the author’s presentation, in view of drawing from them a coherent meaning. This literary analysis results in identifying several motifs, among which homo peccati (the “Man of sin”), mysterium facinoris (the “mystery of evil”), and discessio (the “departure” or “separation”) are most important for Tyconius. He interprets, elaborates, and reads them as a response to his own historical context and uses them for his theological purposes. All motifs are joined together into a logical wholeness by the theme of the presence of evil in the church. The theological insights that emerge from Tyconius’ reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12 and their applicability are discussed in the fourth chapter. We shall explore the functionality of bipartition, the central concept of Tyconius, which appears to be not only an essential element of the church’s nature, but also of the human being and temporality. We shall read his insights theologically by putting him into dialogue with some contemporary theologians who might help us to discover actuality of the problem presented by Tyconius. This study is constituted on the basis of the  heuristic structure  which is composed of two dynamisms:  emergence and convergence. In this sense all the involved levels (historical, literary and theological) are mutually related, but at the same time respect their own position in the course of analysis. It is 35

For a detailed explanation of the nomenclature see pp. 63 n. 48 and p. 64 of chapter II.

10

Introduction

why we speak of the historical level first, literary second and theological third. From the historical level emerges the literary level and from these two the theological one emerges. At the same time each level holds its own dynamism, in which internal elements converge with each other. Therefore, we should be attentive to the historical context of the fourth century North Africa, intelligent in examining the construction of the literary world presented in Tyconius’ writings, his morphological, semantic and syntactic work on 2 Thess 2:3–12, his inner logic while dealing with this passage, and reflective upon the theological insights that emerge from the previous two operations.

Chapter I

Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception 1. Conceptual Elements of the Reception History In the past century, many biblical scholars have been focusing on the use of historical criticism, also known as the historical-critical method1 in biblical studies. The primary goal of this method is to discover the primitive meaning of a text in its ‘original historical context’ and its literal sense or sensus literalis historicus. Secondarily, the method helps to re-establish the historical situation of the author and the addressees of the text. This method consists of several disciplines, including source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, tradition criticism, or radical criticism.2 In recent years, however, one can notice, not only in Germany,3 but also all over the world, a growing and sustained interest of scholars in the reception history of the Bible. Several journals, book series, or study centres are dedicated to reception history.4 The reception histoThe attribute ‘historical-critical’ occurs in 1738 in the publication of Hermann S. Reimarus, “Anfänge neutestamentlicher Wissenschaft im 18. Jahrhundert,” in Historische Kritik in der Theologie. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte, ed. Georg Schwaiger, SThGG 32 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 5, n. 11. As a technical term it appears for the first time in a title of Ferdinand Chr. Baur, “Über Zweck und Veranlassung des Römerbriefs und die damit zusammenhängenden Verhältnisse der römischen Gemeinde. Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung,” TZTh 3 (1836): 59–178. 2 See Richard N. Soulen and Kendall R. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 3rd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 78–79. 3 Cf. Andreas Merkt, Tobias Nicklas, and Joseph Verheyden, “Das Novum Testamentum Patristicum (NTP): Ein Projekt zur Erforschung von Rezeption und Auslegung des Neuen Testamentes in frühchristlicher und spätantiker Zeit,” EC 6 (2015): 573–95. 4 Journals e.g.: Journal of the Bible and its Reception; Journal of Biblical Reception; Relegere: Studies in Religion and Reception; Biblical Interpretation; Postscripts: The Journal of Sacred Texts and Contemporary Worlds; Biblical Reception; Annali di storia dell’esegesi; Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum. Book series e.g.: Studies of the Bible and Its Reception; Scriptural Traces: Critical Perspective on the Reception and Influence of the Bible; Handbooks of the Bible and Its Reception; Charles Kannengiesser, The Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2004); Michael Lieb, Emma Mason, and Jonathan Roberts, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Reception History of the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013); Constance M. Furey et al., The Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception (EBR); Mark Elliott, Jennie Grillo, David Lincicum, and Benjamin Schliesser, eds., History of Biblical Exegesis (HBE). Study centers e.g.: Centre 1

12

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

rians examine how biblical texts, motifs, figures, or places are assimilated not only in different cultures, literature, art, music, and film, but also in biblical exegesis, church history, and the history of religions. In other words, scholars who study reception history aim to demonstrate the implications of a process of transformative assimilation and productive reception.5 Each text or work affected by biblical motifs is a product of an author’s inner dialogue with a reality which he or she tries to interpret and communicate to his or her audience. In this sense, the productive reception is not only a transformative assimilation in the interpreting subject itself, but also a performative process in favour of the interpreted reality. Tyconius is a very clear example of this transformative and performative process, because he allowed himself to be questioned and provoked by his reality in order to propose its transformation according to biblical criteria. In this sense, we understand the Liber Regularum and the Expositio Apocalypseos as a concretisation of the process of assimilation. By studying both these works of the African exegete we can learn how biblical texts, by penetrating various spheres of human life, become alive, flexible, and applicable. Often, in confrontation with reality, they obtain new meaning and reveal hidden dimensions, that probably were not consciously intended by an ‘original’ biblical author. Figuratively speaking, the receiver of a biblical text is like an iceberg. We can explore not only its visible, but also its invisible parts. In our case, Tyconius’ invisible part, that is, his thoughts and ideas, are represented in the internal logic of his reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12 and in its impact on his hermeneutics and systematic theology. In the first part of this introductory chapter, we shall see some important contributions to reception studies. In particular, we will be guided by the concepts of Wirkungsgeschichte developed by Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900–2002) and of Rezeptionsgeschichte proposed by Hans Robert Jauss (1921–1997). It is not the goal of this study to make a profound analysis of the concepts proposed by these two German academics, but we make use of them because they logically justify the structure of the reception proposed in this book. The Gadamerian concept of Wirkungsgeschichte supports the historical and literary levels of our understanding of reception, and the Jaussinian perspective on Rezeptionsgeschichte aids the theological level. More concretely, the goal of the first part of this chapter is to better understand what is meant by reception history, why scholars today find this study so fascinating, and how it relates to historical-critical exegesis.

for Reception History of the Bible (CRHB) at the Oxford University; Centre d’analyse et de documentation patristique (CADP) in Strasbourg. 5 Cf. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Teologia e filosofia. Il loro rapporto alla luce della storia commune, trans. Giuliano Sansonetti (Brescia: Queriniana, 2004), 31 (orig. pub. Theologie und Philosophie. Ihr Verhältnis im Lichte ihrer gemeinsamen Geschichte [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996]).

1. Conceptual Elements of the Reception History

13

1.1 Transformative and Performative Effectiveness of Reception The concept of Wirkungsgeschichte plays a crucial role in the textual reception of Gadamer who, through his research, tends to demonstrate the subject’s conditions of understanding while he or she interprets and is interpreted. For Gadamer, understanding is an event that happens in history and in language, but in our approach, it is very important to notice that this event also implies transcendence, because it involves the event of being (historical), the semantic event (literary), and the event of existence (theological).6 Using Martin Heidegger’s words, a hermeneutical understanding considers the totality of being as the fundamental mode of being-in-the-world (Dasein).7 Before Gadamer, Wirkungsgeschichte was related to the “examination of an author’s influence on later generations, especially subsequent writers.”8 This is true, for example, with regard to the medieval authors who were influenced by the works of Tyconius,9 but, in Gadamer’s magnum opus, Wahrheit und Methode,10 the theorising of Wirkungsgeschichte is translated as “effective history” or “history of effect.”11 For him, it is a principle of every understanding of a text which exists in a consciousness that, being already affected by history, we interpret it from our own perspective and bring some prejudices (Vorurteile) to the text, for example, our experience or familiarity with language.12 This hermeneutical turning point can help the contemporary study of Tyconius. The idea of an in6 See Ingolf U. Dalferth, Trascendenza e mondo secolare: Orientamento della vita alla Presenza ultima, trans. Andrea Aguti (Brescia: Queriniana, 2016), 59–87 (orig. pub. Transzendenz und säkulare Welt. Lebensorientierung an letzter Gegenwart [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015]). 7 See Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962), 78–86 (orig. pub. Sein und Zeit [Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1927]). 8 Robert C. Holub, Reception Theory: A Critical Introduction (London: Methuen, 1984), xii. 9 For details, see the second part of the chapter: Tyconius and His Works. 10 Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall, 2nd ed. (London: Continuum, 2004) (orig. pub. Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960]). 11 For other attempts to translate this term, see, for example, Ulrich Luz’s proposal: “history of influence” in Matthew 1–7: A Commentary, trans. Wilhelm C. Linns, A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989); Matthew 8–20: A Commentary, trans. James E. Crouch, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001); Matthew 21–28: A Commentary, trans. James E. Crouch, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005); John F.A. Sawyer’s: “impact history” in “The Role of Reception Theory, Reader-Response Criticism and / or Impact History in the Study of the Bible: Definition and Evaluation” (paper presented at the SBL, San Antonio, TX, November 20–23, 2004), http://bbibcomm.net/files/rowland2004.pdf, or David P. Parris’ “the history of the impact of a text” in Reception Theory and Biblical Hermeneutics (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009), 117. See also Nancy Klancher, “A Genealogy for Reception History,” BibInt 21 (2013): 99–129. 12 See Gadamer, Truth and Method, 272, 299.

14

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

terpreter’s own situation is discussed earlier by Heidegger in his first academic book Sein und Zeit (1927), in which he speaks about the Vorstruktur des Verstehens (“pre-structure of understanding” or “structure of pre-judgment”).13 Georgia Warnke commenting on Gadamer’s Vorurteile speaks of three Preterms: “before I begin consciously to interpret a text or grasp the meaning of an object, I have already placed it within a certain context (Vorhabe), approached it from a certain perspective (Vorsicht), and conceived of it in a certain way (Vorgriff).”14 Gadamer recognises that the “prejudices of the individual, far more than his judgments, constitute the historical reality of his being.”15 These prejudices shape “the horizon of a particular present” of the reader that encounters the historical horizon of the text.16 A reader cannot simply assimilate the otherness of a text, but has to “set off” his own horizon from the horizon of a text.17 Gadamer emphasises that “the important thing is to be aware of one’s own bias, so that the text may present itself in all its newness and thus be able to assert its own truth against one’s own fore-meanings.”18 Only after this process can one experience the fusion of horizons (Horizontverschmelzung) in the act of understanding. It is a necessary dialectic, because “the horizon of the present cannot be formed without the past.”19 Gadamer believes that a text and a reader create a dialogue that brings them to a mutual understanding. He insists that “when it [a text] does begin to speak … it does not simply speak its word, always the same in lifeless rigidity, but gives ever new answers to the person who questions it and poses ever new questions to him who answers it.”20 This process of understanding leads to Anwendung (application) of the “text to be understood to the interpreter’s present situation.”21 In this way, Gadamer levels the understanding of the text with the understanding of what the texts says to me. He underlines that reason is not atemporal, but “remains constantly dependent on the given circumstances in which it operates.”22 Gadamer, therefore, insists on the importance of history in understanding and sees it as an

Heidegger, Being and Time, 191–95. Georgia Warnke, Gadamer: Hermeneutics, Tradition, and Reason (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987), 77. 15 Gadamer, Truth and Method, 278. 16 See ibid., 303–5; Ulrich Luz, Theologische Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2014), 404–5. 17 See Irene J.F. De Jong and John Patrick Sullivan, eds., Modern Critical Theory and Classical Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 220. 18 Gadamer, Truth and Method, 238. 19 Ibid., 305. 20 Hans-Georg Gadamer, Philosophical Hermeneutics, ed. and trans. David Linge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), 57 (orig. pub. “Die phänomenologische Bewegung,” in Philosophische Rundschau 11 [1963]: 1–45). 21 Gadamer, Truth and Method, 306–7. 22 Ibid., 245. 13 14

1. Conceptual Elements of the Reception History

15

ongoing process into which readers of Scripture, using Heidegger’s term, are “thrown” into existence (Geworfenheit) as Dasein:23 History does not belong to us, but we belong to it. Long before we understand ourselves through the process of self-examination, we understand ourselves in a self-evident way in the family, society and state in which we live. … The self-awareness of the individual is only a flicker in the closed circuits of historical life. That is why the prejudices of the individual, far more than his judgments, constitute the historical reality of his being.24

In relation to a text, a reader must, hence, use his own historical horizon, which is shaped by the process of history, in order to reconstruct a historical situation of the text. In Gadamer’s way of thinking, when a reader brings questions to the text and is questioned by the text,25 this process leads to a productive attitude of a reader, to an experiential understanding (Bildung)26 that is not static but open to new experiences.27 For this reason, in our case, it becomes clear that reception is a process of transformative assimilation, and its application is confirmed by the theorisation of the Wirkungsgeschichte.28 These hermeneutic considerations led Gadamer to believe that the real meaning of a text, as it speaks to the interpreter, does not depend on the contingencies of the author and who he originally wrote for. It is certainly not identical with them, for it is always partly determined also by the historical situation of the interpreter and hence by the totality of the objective course of history.29

Gadamer, therefore, maintains that in a text-reader dialogue we shall not speak about a “historical” (historisch) process that designates historicism, but about an ongoing “historic” process (geschichtlich), because the “true meaning of a text or a work of art is never finished; it is in fact an infinite process.”30 Consequently, we are able to discover new meanings that are potentially present in the historical, literary and theological levels of the text. 1.2 Productive Process of Reception Just as Gadamer gives us a theoretical basis to elaborate the historical and literary levels of reception, so in Jauss’ hermeneutics we find the foundation to address the theological level. With a critical approach to the Gadamerian Wirkungsgeschichte, Jauss proposes two terms, Rezeptionsästhetik and RezepCf. Heidegger, Being and Time, 174. 261. Gadamer, Truth and Method, 276–77. See also Jean Grondin, Hans-Georg Gadamer: A Biography, trans. Joel C. Weinsheimer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 53–70 (orig. pub. Hans-Georg Gadamer. Eine Biographie [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999]). 25 See Parris, Reception Theory, 51–53. 26 See Gadamer, Truth and Method, 8–16. 27 See ibid., xxxii. 28 See Claudio Tuozzolo, Hans Georg Gadamer e l’interpretazione come accadere dell’essere (Milano: Franco Angeli, 1996), 89–98. 29 Gadamer, Truth and Method, 263. 30 Ibid., 265. 23 24

16

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

tionsgeschichte, as part of his research on reception theory. Concretely, he defines Rezeptionsästhetik as a “pleasurable understanding” or “understanding pleasure” that occurs in three stages, namely: poiesis (a process of literary activity that happens when an author produces a possible world), aisthesis (a process of perceiving a new view of the world) and katharsis (a process of identification with the textual world). This threefold process of aesthetic experience allows a reader to make a journey from pre-reflective reading to reflective reading and finally to the reception of the text.31 In this sense, it seems that Tyconius’ texts offer us a process of assuming his new vision of the church, of human being and ultimate realities, which means that a reader can find in it a “pleasurable understanding.” Certainly, one does not have to be an expert of the period from which an ancient text originates since a pleasurable or unpleasurable understanding of the world of the text already helps a reader to compare it with his own world. Introducing the concept of Erwartungshorizont (horizon of expectation), Jauss insists that texts have “a still unfinished meaning” and can be valued differently from one historical period to another, a difference which generates an aesthetic distance.32 He focuses on the historical influence of texts on various audiences because reception can result in a “change of horizons.”33 For him, as Irene De Jong and John Patrick Sullivan notice, Horizontabhebung (differentiation [lit. withdrawal] of horizons) “is no longer a necessary preliminary to understanding, but is in itself a way of understanding.”34 A reader should ask not only “what did the text say?”, but rather “what does the text say to me and what do I say to the text.”35 Basically, Jauss maintains that the relationship between the text itself and the reader produces the meaning of the text. Such a relationship occurs between 2 Thess 2:3–12 and Tyconius, who, recognising in this text important motifs, provides them with new meanings and draws theological insights from them in order to dialogue with his own reality. For example, from 2 Thess 2:7a Tyconius produces an original understanding of the theological concept of “mystery,” which, for him, basically signifies God’s permission for the activity of evil in the church, in the human being, and in time. In this way, we understand that Rezeption, as proposed by Jauss, becomes a methodischer Begriff (methodical term).36 In fact, Jauss emphasises the role of the reader in biblical exegesis: See Hans-Robert Jauss, Ästhetische Erfahrung und literarische Hermeneutik (München: Fink, 1977), 787–88. 32 See Hans-Robert Jauss, Toward an Aesthetic of Reception, trans. Timothy Bahti (Brighton: The Harvest Press, 1982), 25. 33 Ibid., 23. 34 De Jong and Sullivan, Modern Critical Theory, 221. 35 Jauss, Toward an Aesthetic of Reception, 146. 36 Cf. Hans-Robert Jauss, Die Theorie der Rezeption: Rückschau auf ihre unerkannte Vorgeschichte: Ansprache anlässlich der Emeritierung von Hans Robert Jauss am 11. Februar 1987 (Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz, 1987), 5. 31

1. Conceptual Elements of the Reception History

17

The productive and the receptive sides of the aesthetic experience enter into a dialectical relationship: the work is not without its effect, its effect presupposes reception, the audience’s judgment in turn conditions the authors’ production. The history of literature presents itself as a process in which the reader as an active, although collective subject confronts the individually producing author and can no longer be overlooked as a mediating instance in the history of literature.37

It is evident that the theme of the transformative assimilation returns as a necessary presumption of reception. In this case, another element of reception is added, namely, a productive assimilation. Therefore, Jauss justly formulates seven principles of his literary hermeneutics, in order to underline the process of moving from Rezeptionsästhetik to Rezeptionsgeschichte, but also to highlight the dialectical experience of the productive reception. It has to be noticed that recent biblical scholars38 utilise some of these principles for their studies, but in our case, we shall use them as keys to understanding some aspects of Tyconius’ reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12. In his first thesis, Jauss points out that a literary work is not “an object that stands by itself and that offers the same view to each reader in each period.”39 It is, in fact, the reader who experiences and interprets the effect of the text. Jauss rejects historical objectivism and understands the history of a work as a dialectic between the horizon of the author, his text, and contemporary and later readers. The second thesis suggests that the horizon of expectations of the reader is determined by his familiarity with earlier works, his pre-understandings of the work and its genre and also by the relationship of two worlds, that of the text and that of the reader.40 In the third thesis, Jauss shows how the literary work affects and shifts the readers’ horizon of expectation. He explains it by an example of the changing reception of Gustave Flaubert’s novel Madame Bovary, which at the time of its publication in 1857 was considered immoral, but in the subsequent years it became accepted and appreciated. Former perceptions, therefore, pass away or are surpassed by fresh horizons of new readers.41 In the fourth thesis, he focuses on the reconstruction of the horizons of expectation of earlier readers. Answers concerning literary works, Jauss argues, depend on the questions that a reader raises. The reconstructions of “the horizon of expectations in the face of which a work was created and received in the past enables one … to pose the questions that the text gave an answer to.”42 Jauss’ fifth thesis looks at a text from a diachronic perspective, as part of a “literary series.” He believes that literary works in contact with readers are dynamic: “the next Hans-Robert Jauss, “Der Leser als Instanz Einer Neuen Geschichte der Literatur,” Poetica 7 (1975): 335–36. 38 See Parris, Reception Theory, 129–47. 39 Jauss, Toward an Aesthetic of Reception, 20–22. 40 See ibid., 23–34 41 See ibid., 27–28. 42 Ibid., 28. 37

18

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

work can solve formal and moral problems left behind by the last work, and present new problems in turn.”43 The sixth thesis appreciates the synchronic aspect of literary works which, according to Jauss, should be studied in relation to contemporaneous works “to make the literary horizon of a specific historical moment comprehensible.”44 In his seventh and last thesis, the reception theorist considers the social function of literature. He speaks about a “special history” that confronts “general history,” namely, that the reader’s literary experience influences his “lived praxis,” shapes his viewpoint and affects his attitude.45 This sevenfold outline of Jauss allows him to adopt and develop Gadamer’s theory of three stages of the hermeneutic process: understanding (intellegere), interpretation (interpretare), and application (applicare).46 These stages correspond to the three levels of the concept of reception that are presented in this study: understanding to historical, interpretation to literary, and, above all, application to theological,47 which is our productive reception of Tyconius’ exegetical and theological insights. The comprehension of a particular historical context in which a biblical text is received constitutes the first step of the entire process of reception, which successively develops by introducing us into the literary world of motives, symbols, figures, themes, or syntax. From this process of meeting between interpreted reality and interpreted text, theological insights are born which can help to transform persons who shape that particular context.

2. Different Modes of Biblical Reception The transformative and performative effectiveness discussed by Gadamer and the productive process emphasised by Jauss lead us to a creative study of the Bible. Both writers underline the relationship between the text and the reader, somehow “redirecting the attention of scholars away from an all-important text to a text that is dependent on its readers as much as its readers are dependent on it.”48

Ibid., 32. Ibid., 36–37. 45 Ibid., 39. 46 See ibid., 139. See also Gadamer, Truth and Method, 306–7. 47 Here it is worth mentioning the newest trend pertinent to the concept of reception, namely the Allelopoetische Transformation connected with Hartmut Böhme and his Berlin research group, which attempts to take into account the creative and constructive moment of reception with regard to the “recipient,” pointing out that the reception in turn transforms its object. See Hartmut Böhme et al., eds., Transformation. Ein Konzept zur Erforschung kulturellen Wandels (München: Fink, 2011). In the present work, I also insist on this transformative aspect that happens in Tyconius as a recipient of 2 Thess 2:3–12. 48 Masiiwa Ragies Gunda, “Reception History of the Bible: Prospects of a New Frontier in African Biblical Studies,” in Reception History and Biblical Studies. Theory and Practice, eds. Emma England and William John Lyons (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 128. 43 44

2. Different Modes of Biblical Reception

19

One of the first German-speaking NT scholars working on reception history was Ulrich Luz (1938–2019), known for his series of commentaries on Matthew’s Gospel. In his recently published book Theologische Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments (2014), Luz proposes his understanding of the church as a boundless dialogue community (grenzenlose Dialoggemeinschaft) to which the Bible belongs and which is its first receiver. He encourages a dialogue (Gespräch) with the biblical texts, with the past, with traditions, with other theologians, philosophers, historians of art and other Christian denominations in order to have a permanent conversation about the Bible.49 This view can be criticised in some points, but Luz is right about the dialogical aspect and, therefore, about the relationship that appears between the text and its author and readers. Luz believes that the NT texts are Mitteilungen (“communications”).50 He perceives Wirkungsgeschichte as equivalent to Rezeptionsgeschichte, but prefers Gadamer’s term, because the “term ‘reception history’ is formulated from the standpoint of the receivers and the term ‘history of effects’ from the standpoint of the original events or texts.”51 Donald Hagner appreciates Luz’s reception work and his standpoint that underlines “the interpretive potential of each passage.”52 Hagner, however, disagrees with Luz about putting the “new meanings” of a text on the same level as “the original sense” intended by the author.53 Andreas Merkt rightly notes that in the patristic literature the NT texts are not structured in a linear way, but church fathers frequently combine NT quotations with each other, treating the biblical text as a point of reference rather than as a book that has its beginning and end. Often patristic authors do not simply quote a particular text but transform it in such a way that it loses its original form and sometimes even gains a new meaning. In this case, the reader who interacts with the text is not only a simple recipient of the text, but at the same time a producer of a new dimension of such text.54 Reception history deals with the variety of meanings that the same biblical text has received in its history. It can deal with an interpretation of a text in a particular period or approach it diachronically through the examination of the entire history of a text’s interpretation. Reception does not focus just on comparing responses of different readers to a particular text, but raises hermeneutical questions and examines what the text meant and what potential it

See Luz, Theologische Hermeneutik, 555–58. Ibid., 199–203. 51 Ulrich Luz, “The Contribution of Reception History,” in The Nature of New Testament Theology: Essays in Honour of Robert Morgan, eds. Christopher Rowland and Christopher Tuckett (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), 124. 52 See Donald A. Hagner, “Review: Matthew 8–20, by Ulrich Luz,” JBL 121 (2002): 768. 53 Cf. ibid. 54 See Merkt, Das Novum Testamentum Patristicum, 579. 49 50

20

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

has for new meanings.55 As John Riches notes, reception is “quite clearly more than just a purely descriptive task; it is an interpretative one.”56 If we consider the reception history of the Bible as the history of a text’s dialogue with different communities or individuals through centuries in the form of interpretation, reading, citation, allusion, revision, adaptation or influence, then we can speak of different modes of reception history.57 We can distinguish reception through exposition which deals with ancient commentaries and introductions that clarify the text and its context or reception through instruction, in which tractates, sermons, and works of piety focus on the moral and spiritual meaning of texts. These two forms of reception are seen in both Tyconius’ works where he provides instructions and comments on the biblical texts, having in mind the idea of warning and encouraging his recipients. When biblical texts are adapted for public worship and prayer then we can speak about reception through liturgy.58 And when the texts are interpreted in artistic ways we deal with reception through aesthetic representation. The examination of texts in their linguistic accuracy and transmission from ancient to modern languages is an example of linguistic reception. It would not be wrong to speak also of narrative reception that can be observed between canonical and apocryphal texts in Judaism and early Christianity.59 These different modes of reception history of the Bible involve various methods used in philosophical hermeneutics, reception theory, historiography or philosophy of history. It seems, therefore, impossible to speak about one clearly defined method for this discipline.60 Reception history, by working with alternative subject areas and methods, pushes the boundaries of biblical studies.61 Scholars approach a text either from its reception “in a particular period of history backwards to the earlier history of the text in its biblical setting” or begin first with “the history of the text in its biblical setting 55 See Jonathan Roberts, “Introduction,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Reception History of the Bible, eds. Michael Lieb et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 6. 56 John Riches, Galatians Through the Centuries (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), 64–65. 57 Here, I follow an interesting summary of types of reception presented in: Susan E. Gillingham,  The Psalms Through the Centuries, BBC, vol. 1 (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008). See also Susan E. Gillingham, “An Introduction to Reception History with particular reference to Psalm 1,” RevScRel 85 (2011): 571–99; Timothy Beal, “Reception History and Beyond: Toward the Cultural History of Scriptures,” BibInt 19 (2011): 359. 58 See Harald Buchinger and Clemens Leonhard, eds., Liturgische Bibelrezeption. Dimensionen und Perspektiven interdisziplinärer Forschung, vol. 108 Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2021). 59 See, for example, Jörg Frey, Claire Clivaz, and Tobias Nicklas, eds., Between Canonical and Apocryphal Texts: Process of Reception, Rewriting, and Interpretation in Early Judaism and Early Christianity, WUNT 419 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019). 60 See James G. Crossley, “The End of Reception History, a Grand Narrative for Biblical Studies and the Neoliberal Bible,” in England and Lyons, Reception History and Biblical Studies, 47. 61 See Emma England and William John Lyons, “Explorations in the Reception of the Bible,” in England and Lyons, Reception History and Biblical Studies, 10.

3. Historical Criticism and Reception History

21

forwards to the reception of the text in a cultural setting.”62 Along the history, when the different forms of reception appear, the biblical text itself can become less important or unknown to the subsequent receivers, who may focus only on the reception of interpreters than the starting text itself.63 Reception history helps us to see this transforming process of biblical texts, their fecundity and capacity for interaction with different readers of various contexts.64 It is a kind of “social employment of religious texts, images, symbols, narratives, words, and physical objects.”65 The encounter of the biblical text with so many various cultures through time and space shows new perspectives of texts and their new levels.66 Biblical reception historians, therefore, do not defend the biblical texts, but see them as the property of the church and society that become receivers of its practical effect. It is well summarised by the words of Jacques Berlinerblau who claims that “an ideal interpreter does not try to understand the original meaning of Scripture. Rather, his or her task is to understand how Scripture has been understood and why it is so difficult to understand.”67 The above observations lead us to an obvious conclusion: reception of biblical texts should be done in light of the reader’s historical, cultural and social contexts, which has already been practised by historical-critical studies. Such an approach helps us to see the various reasons behind multiple interpretations of a single text.

3. Historical Criticism and Reception History Biblical studies appear to be a dynamic discipline which is not limited just to a single idea of Scripture but is constantly open to a change of perspective. In recent decades, in fact, we have witnessed the courageous entrance of reception history into the ‘salons’ of biblical studies. This raises the question of the relationship between the study of a text and the study of its reception. Can text and reception be separated? In this section, we shall briefly consider the

62 Susan Gillingham, “Biblical Studies on Holiday? A Personal View of Reception History,” in England and Lyons, Reception History and Biblical Studies, 19. 63 See ibid., 21. See also Robert P. Carroll, “The Reader and the Text,” in Text in Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study, ed. Andrew D.H. Mayes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 4. 64 See James E. Harding, “What is Reception History, and What Happens to You If You Do It?,” in England and Lyons, Reception History and Biblical Studies, 39. 65 James Agee and Walker Evans, Let Us Now Praise Famous Men: Three Tenant Families (Boston: Mainer Books, 2001), 10. 66 See Gillingham, “Biblical Studies on Holiday?,” 17, 22. 67 Jacques Berlinerblau, The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 79.

22

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

evolution and crisis of the historical-critical method and attempt to determine its incompatibility or compatibility with reception history. 3.1 Evolution and Crisis of the Historical-Critical Method All the exegesis of the church fathers and the Middle Ages was based on the axiom that the Bible is the inspired book in which the Holy Spirit unites all parts into one. In practice, an exegete was obliged to interpret texts in accordance with the spirit in which they were written and to consider not only their literal but also the figurative sense with the help of allegorical interpretation. It was believed that all the individual writings fit into the whole and each biblical passage can be explained with the help of others. Any interpretation that contradicted the regula fidei (the rule of faith) could not be correct. In their interpretation of Scripture, the early Christian theologians frequently drew a distinction between the plain meaning of a text and its ‘spiritual’ sense. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–ca. 215), for example, discerned four different senses a Scripture passage can bear: the literal or historical and the spiritual or mystical senses – allegorical (indicating what is to be believed), moral or tropological (how one is to act), and anagogical (relating to the hoped-for future blessedness).68 Origen (ca. 185–254) distinguished three levels of scriptural interpretation analogous to the body, soul and spirit. These three senses are literal, moral, and spiritual. The last two senses could be achieved only by faith and with the help of the Spirit. Origen believed that misconceptions in the interpretation of the scriptural text are produced when the text is taken literally and not according to its spiritual content.69 The denial of inspiration was equivalent to the total ‘humanisation’ of Scripture which then could no longer be material used for allegorical interpretation.70 The importance given to the allegorical sense at this period naturally led to the neglect of the literal sense.71 In the twelfth century this exegesis was criticised by Hugo of Saint-Victor (1096–1141) who insisted on the importance of the historical and literal meaning before attempts at discovering the deeper dimension of the biblical text.72 In the late Middle Ages and the era of Renaissance Humanism, the importance of the literary sense became primary for exegesis while the allegorical

68 See, for example, Henri de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis. The Four Senses of Scripture, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). 69 See Origen, Traité des Principes 3.2.2 (SC 268.301). 70 See ibid. 4.2, n.10 (SC 269.174). 71 See Christina Metzdorf, Die Tempelaktion Jesu. Patristische und historisch-kritische Exegese im Vergleich, WUNT 2:168 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 8–41; Basil Studer, Schola Christiana: Die Theologie zwischen Nizäa (325) und Chalzedon (451) (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1998), 198–229. 72 See Hugo of St. Victor, De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris 1.5 (PL 175.13D–14A).

3. Historical Criticism and Reception History

23

sense was considered the task of preachers and theologians.73 In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, critical biblical exegesis that was focused on the literary sense was practised predominately by Catholics. Protestants believed in the absolute authority of Scripture and the doctrine of verbal inspiration prevented them from critical exegesis. On the Catholic side we have to mention some important names like, for example, Erasmus of Rotterdam (1469–1536), a Dutch philosopher and biblical scholar, who supported the humanistic call Ad fontes ([back] to the sources) and a return to the texts in their original languages. He edited the Greek NT, tracing the process of its textual transmission, and developed text-critical principles. He even opted for a linguistic understanding of allegory.74 In Spain, Juan Maldonado (1534–1583), a Jesuit theologian and exegete acknowledged that the Greek text makes more sense than the Latin text.75 Another Dutch humanist, Hugo Grotius (1538–1645), who, though Protestant, was involved in the explanation of the Hebrew language by referring to the Septuagint in order to better understand the expressions of the evangelists and the apostles.76 We cannot omit mention of Richard Simon (1638–1712), a French priest and influential biblical critic who in the spirit of rationalism wrote A Critical History of the Old and New Testaments and who is generally regarded as the founder of critical biblical scholarship.77 In the middle of the eighteenth century, educated Protestants began to be open to the reasoning of the Enlightenment. One of the leading figures of the changes in critical exegesis was Johann Salomo Semler (1725–1791), known as the ‘father of German rationalism.’ He rejected the equal value of the Old and New Testaments, their inspiration and supernatural superintendence in the transmission of the biblical material.78 In the nineteenth century, the new attribute was given to exegesis “historical-critical” and was based on the axiom that See Fernando D. Reboiras, Gaspar de Grajal (1530–1575). Frühneuzeitliche Bibelwissenschaft im Streit mit Universität und Inquisition (Münster: Aschendorff, 1998), 279; Juan Maldonado, “De ratione theologiae docendae. De studio theologiae,” in Miscellanea de Maldonado, ed. R. Galdos (Madrid: CSIC 1947), 139. 74 See Erasmus, Ecclesiastes sive concionator evangelicus 3, in Opera Omnia, ed. Jean Le Clerc (Leiden: Petrus van der Aa, 1704), 5.1034D–1035A; 1043B–D; Peter Walter, Theologie aus dem Geist der Rhetorik. Zur Schriftauslegung des Erasmus von Rotterdam, TSTP 1 (Mainz: Matthias Grünewald, 1991), 226–50. 75 See Richard Simon, Critical History of the Text of the New Testament: Wherein is Established the Truth of the Acts on which the Christian Religion is Based, trans. Andrew Hunwick (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 13–14 (orig. pub. Histoire Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testament: Où l’on établit la verité des Actes sur lesquels la Religion Chrètienne est fondée [Rotterdam: chez Reinier Leers, 1689]). 76 See, for example, A.W. Rosenberg and H.S. Lake, “Hugo Grotius as Hebraist,” StudRos 12 (1978): 62–90. 77 See Auguste Molien, “Art. Simon. Richard,” in DThC 14:2, 2094–118.  78 See Gottfried Hornig, Johann Salomo Semler: Studien zu Leben und Werk des Hallenser Aufklärungstheologen (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1996), 229–42. 73

24

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

the Bible should be interpreted as any other ancient book. From this conviction Semler identifies five principles, which Marius Reiser mentions in his article. The first one underlines that all individual writings are to be interpreted in their own right and the connection between the Old and New Testaments can be established only on a literary and historical basis. In the second principle, Selmer states that biblical passages from different Scriptures can only serve as mutual explanations if they are tradition-historically or factually-culturally-historically related. The third principle excludes the element of faith, insisting that the exegete needs only reason and the right methods for an appropriate exegesis. In the fourth one, Selmer affirms that allegorical interpretation is arbitrary and, therefore, unscientific. The fifth principle rejects the regula fidei as a measure of correct and proper exegesis.79 Not only Catholics began to doubt the correctness of this approach, but also some Protestants noticed its weaknesses. The Protestant theologian Adolf Schlatter (1852–1938), for example, dedicated his entire life to the fight against a liberal biblical criticism which abandoned the doctrine of inspiration and became a purely religious study. Schlatter attempted to find a middle way between fundamentalist pietism and liberal historical-criticism with his creative reinterpretation of classic attributes of Scripture, namely: inspiration as organic and historic-pneumatic, unity as Christocentric, scriptural authority as evoking discipleship, infallibility as relational-volitional, and perspicuity as catholic.80 Towards the end of the nineteenth century, some Catholic exegetes began to pursue ‘modern’ exegesis that initiated the so-called ‘crisis of modernism.’81 The Jesuit exegete Franz von Hummelauer (1842–1914), who in his Exegetisches zur Inspirationsfrage claimed that “every literary genre has its own peculiar truth,”82 had to leave his membership in the Pontifical Biblical Commission and was not allowed to do further exegetical work. The French Catholic priest Alfred Loisy (1857–1940) was excommunicated for his teaching on the inspiration of the Bible and his biblical criticism that questioned, for example, the authorship of the Pentateuch or the interpretation of the creation account. The papal antimodernist pronouncement was also addressed to Marie-Joseph Lagrange (1855–1938), the founder of the École Biblique in Jerusalem, whose commentary on Genesis clearly represented the modernist

79 See Marius Reiser, “Die Prinzipien der biblischen Hermeneutik und ihr Wandel unter dem Einfluss der Aufklärung,” in Die prägende Kraft der Texte. Hermeneutik und Wirkungsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. Ein Symposium zu Ehren von Ulrich Luz, ed. Mosés Mayordomo, SBS 199 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005), 94. 80 See Michael Bräutigam, “Adolf Schlatter on Scripture as Gnadenmittel: remedy for a hypertensive debate?,” SJT 69 (2016): 81–94. 81 See Reiser, “Die Prinzipien der biblischen Hermeneutik,” 77–79. 82 Franz von Hummelauer, Exegetisches zur Inspirationsfrage: Mit besonderer Rücksicht auf das Alte Testament, BibS 9 (Freiburg: Herder, 1904), 45.

3. Historical Criticism and Reception History

25

viewpoint.83 The approach to biblical studies changed diametrically in 1943 when the pope Pius XII issued his Encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, in which he expressed the church’s openness to modern exegesis. But the official recognition of the scientific method does not mean that the hermeneutical problems disappeared. Many modern scholars have noticed the limitation of the historical-critical method and have analysed its weaknesses. Edgar Krentz, for example, puts it in the following words: It is difficult to overestimate the significance the nineteenth century has for biblical interpretation. The result was a revolution of viewpoint in evaluating the Bible. The Scriptures were, so to speak, secularized. The biblical books became historical documents to be studied and questioned like any other ancient sources. The Bible was no longer the criterion for the writing of history; rather history had become the criterion for understanding the Bible.… The history it reported was no longer assumed to be everywhere correct. The Bible stood before criticism as defendant before judge.84

This strong statement clearly communicates the kind of crisis that arose among biblical scholars, churches and simple receivers of the Bible. In his Preface to the second edition (1921) of his Commentary on Romans, Karl Barth states that he does not reject historical criticism and recognises its necessity and usefulness, but complains that some commentators stop at the level of biblical criticism, not understanding that this is just a first step. According to him, it is not enough just to reconstruct the text with some additional comments from the archaeological or philological fields.85 John Barton and John Muddiman warn that those who use historical criticism should be aware that “its sphere of operations, though vital, is not exhaustive.”86 The Bible, of course, should be examined critically: philologically, literarily, and historically, but it cannot be an end in itself. The fact that historical criticism underwent enormous fragmentation, so that one was never really clear whether one should read a biblical text by first applying textual criticism, or form criticism, or source criticism, or tradition criticism, or redaction criticism or, later still, canon criticism87

brought a lot of confusion and made the Bible a book not of the church but of a few specialists. It is true that the historical-critical method fulfils its role in distinguishing the “text from biases of the interpreter,” but is not able to “manage well rejoining of the text’s message to the life-world of the interpreter.”88 See Louis-Hugues Vincent, “Art. Lagrange, Albert-Marie-Henry,” DBS 6 (1960): 231–37. Edgar Krentz, The Historical Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 30. 85 See Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 6 (orig. pub. Der Römerbrief [Erste Fassung, 1919], ed. H. Schmidt, vol. 1 [Zürich: Theologische Verlag, 1985]). 86 John Barton and John Muddiman, “General Introduction,” in OBC, eds. John Barton and John Muddiman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 3. 87 Gillingham, “Biblical Studies on Holiday?,” 18. 88 Willard M. Swartley, Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women: Case Issues in Biblical Interpretation (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1983), 219. 83

84

26

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

This concise presentation of the evolution and crisis of the historical-critical method should help us understand that the problem is not the method itself, which is also needed in reception history for the examination of the historical context of reception, but historical-critical hermeneutics. The hermeneutical principles which guide the modern exegesis should be rethought and an honest analysis about what has been abandoned should be done. The Constitution Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council89 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church90 underline that the new paradigm of exegesis should not exclude the old one. Krister Stendahl points out the necessity of distinguishing between “what the text meant” in its Sitz im Leben and “what the text means.”91 Stendahl’s observation opens the way to reception history as a naturally “born child” of the historical-critical method. ‘This child,’ like ‘its parent,’ is not perfect, but keeps maturing in its capacities and opens ways for further developments. 3.2 Biblical Criticism and Reception History: Compatibility or Incompatibility? As we have seen, the development of biblical criticism has brought with it various fears and difficulties. The study of the reception history of the Bible presents many challenges and has its own limitations too. This relatively new approach is still in its infancy and needs to establish its clear methodological tools. Emma England and William Lyons underline that “scholars must avoid superficiality, appropriating and colonizing cultures that are not their own, and recognize that the Bible means different things at different times in different communities.”92 It is true that different interpretations of the same biblical text can also be “dangerous, destructive, logically incoherent, even morally repellent,” but this “does not permit the ethically responsible reception historian to reject them out of hand, or, which is worse, to pretend that they do not follow the grain of the text.”93 It cannot be foreseen how the text will be received in a particular space, context, or time, and without doubt it should be respected. Multiple responses to a single biblical text can naturally make this approach less analytic and too descriptive and also adversely influence its hermeneutics. In order to avoid this tendency, it would be, perhaps, better to focus both the method and purpose on one period of history or to consider one or two indiviVatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 18 November 1965, AAS 58 (1966), 817–30, §§ 11–13. 90 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1995), §§ 101–13. 91 Krister Stendahl, “Biblical Theology, Contemporary,” in IDB, vol. 1, 418–32. 92 England and Lyons, “Explorations in the Reception of the Bible,” 9. See also Markus Bockmuehl, “A Commentator’s Approach to the ‘Effective History’ of Philippians,” JSNT 60 (1996): 62. 93 E. Repphun et al. “Editors’ Introduction. Beyond Christianity, the Bible, and the Text: Urgent Tasks and New Orientations for Reception History,” Relegere: Studies in Religion and Reception 1:1 (2011): 9. 89

3. Historical Criticism and Reception History

27

duals or communities that have used a particular biblical text in their context. The reception historian should, however, as in the field of biblical studies, be attentive to his subjective choices in the processing of the data, “what to include and what to exclude.”94 That is why in our case we focus on reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12 in Tyconius, which allows us to remain in the framework of analytical studies. We have said earlier that the biblical authors could not imagine the direction their texts will take and how fecund they will become. They could not foresee why a particular text provokes certain responses that are incongruent with those of the original author. All these issues are a fascinating field for deeper analysis and it seems to me that the compatibility, rather than incompatibility, between so-called ‘historical critics’ and ‘reception historians’ should be developed if we want the Bible to ‘remain alive’ in the future. Perhaps, the honest recognition of the proper limitations on both sides could lead to a kind of reception-historical method in biblical studies. In fact, the understanding of the interaction between a text, a context and an audience’s response is what Moisés Mayordomo calls “hypothetical first-reception” (hypothetische Erst-Rezeption)95 in the historical-critical method studies.96 For Gadamer as the philosopher of hermeneutics, the question which a modern reader brings to the past text and the possible answers which he receives, is important. The horizon of the question necessarily includes other possible answers.97 Wolfgang Iser (1926–2007), one of the famous advocates of Reception Theory in the contemporary field, proposes the concept of “implied reader” (impliziter Leser) as the one who is “firmly planted in the structure of the text; he is a construct and in no way to be identified with any real reader.”98 The implied reader, as a helping structure, precedes any real recipient, “pre-structures the role to be assumed by each recipient, … designates a network of response-inviting structures, which impel the reader to grasp the text.”99 In other words, the implied reader becomes a sort of mediator between the real reader and the text and so that the reading process enables a reader to “actualize the potential meaning of the text.”100 Iser maintains that a structured act refers to his ideas that “the reader’s role is pre-structured by three basic components: the different perGillingham, “Biblical Studies on Holiday?,” 22–27. Moisés Mayordomo-Marín, Den Anfang hören: Leseorientierte Evangelienexegese am Beispiel von Matthäus 1–2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 321–30. 96 See William J. Lyons, “Hope for a Troubled Discipline? Contributions to the New Testament Studies from Reception History,” JSNT 33 (2010): 213. 97 See Gadamer, Truth and Method, 363. 98 Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), 34 (orig. pub. Der Akt des Lesens. Theorie ästhetischer Wirkung [München: Fink, 1976]). 99 Ibid., 34. 100 Wolfgang Iser, The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), xii (orig. pub. Der im94 95

28

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

spectives represented in the text, the vantage point from which he joins them together, and the meeting place where they converge.”101 “By bringing about a standpoint for the reader,” Iser clarifies further: “the textual structure follows a basic rule of human perception, as our views are always of a perspective nature.”102 The reader’s standpoint allows him to construct meaning as guided by the text, which means that the “reader takes the textual structures, constructing and converting them into a personal explanation for the text.”103 According to Iser, the text-reader relationship has not been sufficiently appreciated by traditional criticism. Instead of asking what the text means, he asked, what it does to its potential readers. In both reception theory and reader-response criticism the role of reader is seen as most important. Many modern scholars have noted the need for complementarity between exegesis and reception criticism / history. Thiselton believes that reception history “opens the door to exegesis as explication: an explication that permits us to see a dimension of meaning that successive contexts of reading bring into sharper focus for our attention.”104 John Barton, instead, maintains that reception history comes after exegesis.105 Morales Vásquez proposes “the integration of the exegesis of Scriptures with their history of reception.”106 Gilingham and Jonathan Morgan argue that reception history has a right to be included among biblical studies because it is concerned with history which also interests biblical studies and, therefore, “allows us to see there are many more levels in our historical understanding of the text than the purportedly ‘top’ level.”107 This approach encourages a dialogue between the “history of culture” and the “history of the text” and it is precisely the historical perspective that holds this dialogue together.108 It also deals with reception history and this means it belongs as much to the more recent rhetorical and reader-response methods used in biblical studies as it does to the variety of more traditional historical methods … although its perplizite Leser. Kommunikationsformen des Romans von Bunyan bis Beckett [München: Fink, 1972]). 101 Iser, The Act of Reading, 36. 102 Ibid., 38. 103 Alejandra G. Lobo, “Reader-Response Theory: A Path Towards Wolfgang Iser,” Letras 54 (2013): 30. 104 Anthony C. Thiselton, Thiselton on Hermeneutics: The Collected Works with New Essays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 304. 105 Cf. John Barton, The Nature of Biblical Criticism (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 159. 106 Morales Vásquez and Víctor Manuel, Contours of a Biblical Reception Theory. Studies in the Rezeptionsgeschichte of Romans 13.1–7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 63. 107 Gillingham, “Biblical Studies on Holiday?,” 19 108 Ibid., 19; Jonathan Morgan, “Visitors, Gatekeepers and Receptionists: Reflections on the Shape of Biblical Studies and the Role of Reception History,” in England and Lyons, Reception History and Biblical Studies, 62–63.

3. Historical Criticism and Reception History

29

spective is historical, its way of reading takes for granted that the meaning of the text is something brought to it through the responses of later readers in different cultural contexts.109

It seems, therefore, correct to state that the reception history can help the historical critical method to go beyond just the ancient meaning of a text, and to justify the importance of biblical studies for the people of today, whose questions cannot be answered just by the hypothetical first reception. Today’s reader wants to see the relevance of the Bible in his own context.110 James Crossley rightly postulates that scholars should think holistically: we should join those who want to do away with, or at least critique, the term ‘reception history’ (as conventionally understood), though by the same logic we should also do away with the label ‘historical criticism’ if understood in a conventionally limited sense. When we think in terms of the origins, development and use of the Bible and biblical texts, we no longer need to make the distinction between (for instance) ‘historical criticism’ and ‘reception history’ because, not only is everything reception in some form, but everything is, obviously, history.111

The use of biblical commentary, for instance, is a use of reception history by biblical scholars. They deal in various ways with reader reception-oriented methods. Biblical criticism and reception history actually perform similar activity: they “find interpretations of texts, put them in their contexts, and explain their original meanings.”112 They are related, as we have already said, in the so-called “reader-response criticism,” which actually deals with the “effects” of the text on the reader. Luz underlines that hermeneutics based on reception history is able to collect the results of such research and help to integrate them into a contemporary, holistic and application-oriented understanding of the texts. It can modify or disprove many assumptions that arise when the texts are questioned from a social science, historical-psychological or social-anthropological perspective or when the texts are examined in the context of gender studies.113

For Gerhard Ebeling, church history is actually “the history of the exposition of Scripture,”114 and the “exposition of Scripture was what we call ‘reception history’ today.”115 The most important hermeneutical goal of renewing the reception history of biblical texts is the clarification of our relationship to the texts. Interpreters of biblical texts never encounter their texts in an empty, abstract space, which would allow them to easily turn them into mere objects that they can study scientifically.116 Gillingham, “Biblical Studies on Holiday?,” 20–21. See ibid., 22; Crossley, “The End of Reception History,” in England and Lyons, Reception History and Biblical Studies, 47. 111 Ibid., 47–48. 112 Brennan Breed, “What Can a Text Do? Reception History as an Ethology of the Biblical Text,” in England and Lyons, Reception History and Biblical Studies, 98. 113 Luz, Theologische Hermeneutik, 406–7. 114 Gerhard Ebeling, The Word of God and Tradition (London: Collins, 1968), 28. 115 Luz, “The Contribution of Reception History,” 123. 116 See Luz, Theologische Hermeneutik, 400. 109 110

30

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

It does not mean that an appropriate distinction between ‘historical criticism’ and ‘reception history’ has to be abandoned or superseded, on the grounds, expressed above by James Crossley, that “not only is everything reception in some form, but everything is, obviously, history.” It seems that in our time there is a need to work further on the complementarity between both approaches, but without neglecting that it is equally important to work on the meaning in biblical texts as well as on the meaning that is taken from biblical texts in various contexts, cultures and times.117 The NTP project seeks to achieve this aim. Several scholars all over the world and young researchers in Regensburg and Leuven who belong to the wider circle of the NTP group, attempt to make the entire reception of the NT in early Christian and late antiquity scientifically accessible. That is, not only to make the source texts relevant to specific NT verses, passages and writings within reach, but also to explain them from their diverse contexts and to work out the patterns that shape discourse and guide communication.118 The openness to inter-disciplinary collaboration is necessary in the complexity of studies on the Bible. Such activity can help both historical criticism and reception history to see new unknown dimensions of biblical texts. One example of the NTP work is the volume on Ancient Perspectives on Paul, in which various scholars contribute to the former discussion on Paul by filling gaps with regard to ancient interpretations of Pauline texts, especially the reception of Paul, his mission, and his theology in the ancient church.119 In our approach to the hermeneutics of Tyconius with regards to 2 Thess 2:3–12, there is an integrated and consolidated vision of its reception composed of historical, literary and theological levels. The reception understood in this way justifies our perspective for interdisciplinary cooperation between these aspects. The concise explanation of the necessary concepts and the foundation of our method leads us to the second important part of this chapter, namely the presentation of Tyconius and his approach to Scripture.

4. Tyconius and Biblical Reception The art of interpretation is exercised by means of appropriate hermeneutical tools. In our reading of Tyconius, we discover that his interpretative principles correspond to the three levels of reception: historical, literary and theological, that is, to a process of transformative, performative and productive assimilation. See Beal, “Reception History and Beyond,” 364. This is achieved through the publication of a series of commentaries, conferences on individual topics, dissertations or post-doctoral publications. See Merkt, Das Novum Testamentum Patristicum, 581–82. 119 See Tobias Nicklas, Andreas Merkt, and Joseph Verheyden, eds., Ancient Perspectives on Paul (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013). 117 118

4. Tyconius and Biblical Reception

31

We can illustrate this by returning to the image of an ‘iceberg’ mentioned above. In Tyconius’ case, though his hermeneutics are very well explained in the Liber Regularum and applied in the Expositio Apocalypseos, there is somehow an invisible part that constitutes and guides his reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12, and other biblical texts as well. Tyconius’ process of transformative assimilation, that is, his inner dialogue or even struggle with the text and reality becomes the point of departure for his performative activity – the process in which he discovers in the biblical text pathways for its interpretation, and hence, for the creation of his literary world. These two stages of hermeneutical discernment open the way to the productive theological results, which in turn can be useful for the transformation of the reality. Tyconius’ seven rules are therefore not just rules for interpreting Scriptures but also rules for understanding, interpreting and transforming human beings and their existence in light of biblical texts. When Luz speaks about his own hermeneutics, he says that it is not just a result of his theoretical reflection, but is the fruit of his life-long occupation with the biblical texts. Thus, it is his personal hermeneutic.120 Though Tyconius’ active life as an exegete and theologian lasted only for ca. 20 years (370–390), it is, however, clear that what he has left us is a product of his experience of the world, the church and the Spirit in Scripture. His reception of the Bible shows us what he as an individual has received from the biblical text in his own church and in his own culture. We shall attempt to understand it better by knowing Tyconius’ life and his works and exploring an invisible part of the ‘iceberg,’ namely, his hermeneutics which is the cornerstone of his reception. 4.1 Notes on Tyconius and His Works We learn about Tyconius121 mainly from two sources: from the work of Gennadius of Marseilles (5th c.), Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, and from Tyconius’ younger contemporary, Augustine (354–430), who in his treatise on biblical hermeneutics De doctrina Christiana, critically reviewed Tyconius’

See Luz, Theologische Hermeneutik, 1–2. MSS of LR provide four different Latinized versions of his name, which probably stems from the Greek word τύχη (fortunate): Tyconius (R O), Thiconius (V P E), Ticonius (M), Tichonius (O and Editions). Some MSS of Augustine’s De doctrina christiana have Tychonius and some MSS of Primasius’ Commentary on the Apocalypse mention Thyconius. See Francis C. Burkitt, The Book of Rules of Tyconius (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1894), 103; Juan J. Ayán Calvo, Ticonio. Libro de las Reglas, Fuentes Patrísticas 23 (Madrid: Ciudad Nueva, 2009), 12–17. The acts of the Council of Carthage in 411 mentions two Catholic bishops from the African region whose names linguistically derive from the Latin fortuna: Fortunatus of Constantine and Fortunatianus of Sicca. See Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis anno 411 1.2 (SC 195.560). Tyconius seems to be called by a latinized version of a Greek root carrying the same meaning that would indicate that he was an ethnic Greek born in Africa Proconsularia. 120 121

32

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

rules.122 Gennadius informs us that Tyconius was an African, a member of the Donatist community, zealous about ecclesiastical affairs and well-educated in both divine and secular literature. He also tells us that Tyconius wrote at least four works: De bello intestino, Expositiones diversarum causarum, Liber Regularum or Liber de septem regulis and In apocalypsin,123 of which the first two are lost, while the last one has been recently reconstructed under the title Expositio Apocalypseos, and Liber Regularum is the only one that has survived relatively intact. French historian Paul Monceaux (1859–1941) believes that Tyconius was born around 330, but does not present any evidence for his position.124 He also speculates that the African died in 390.125 Other scholars propose the years between 392–395, but not after 400 as the year of Tyconius’ death.126 His activity as exegete and theologian could be, therefore, placed around 370–390127 in the regions of Roman Africa. At least in the beginning of his intellectual work, he shared the theological position of his fellow Donatists. Though he presented an anti-imperial attitude and cultivated rigorism, which characterised Donatists,128 he was also able to think independently, identifying some doctrinal errors of his movement. Most probably his first work De bello intestino challenged a Donatist theology that was based on the conviction that only they constitute a pure church. In Expositiones diversarum causarum, Tyconius disagreed with their two other pretensions, namely, that the church exists only in North Africa and See 3.30–37 (CCSL 32.103–15). Gennadius of Marseilles, Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis 18 (PL 58.1071A): “Tichonius natione Afer, in divinis literis eruditus, juxta historiam sufficienter, et in saecularibus non ignarus fuit; in ecclesiasticis quoque negotiis studioisus … agnoscitur Donatianae partis fuisse.” 124 Monceaux speculates on Tyconius’ life, attempting to prove that we actually know more about him than the evidence from the ancient sources tells us. See Paul Monceaux, Histoire Littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne depuis les origines jusqu’à l’invasion arabe: Saint Optat et les premiers écrivains Donatistes, vol. 5 (Paris: E. Leroux, 1920), 165–78. See also André Mandouze, Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne (303–533). Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, vol. 1 (Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scinetifique, 1982), 1122–26. 125 See Monceaux, Histoire Littéraire, 167, 170; Yves M.J. Congar, “Parménien et Tyconius,” in Traités Anti-Donatistes: Oeuvres de Saint Augustin 28, vol. 1, BA 28 (Paris: Desclée, 1963), 718. 126 See Martine Dulaey, “Tyconius,” in DS 15, 1349–56; Jean-Marc Vercruysse, Tyconius. Le Livre des Règles (SC 488.14). 127 Cf. Monceaux, Histoire Littéraire, 169–70. See also Vercruysse, Tyconius, 13– 14; Manlio Simonetti, “Hilario de Poitiers y la crisis arriana en Occidente. Polemistas y herejes,” in Patrologia: La edad de oro de la literature patrística latina, eds. J. Quasten and A. di Berardino, vol. 3 (Madrid: La Editorial Católica, 1981), 137. 128 Cf. Traugott Hahn, Tyconius-Studien. Ein Beitrag zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts (Leipzig: Dieterich 1900; repr., Aalen: Scientia, 1971), 100; L.J. van der Lof, “Warum wurde Tyconius nicht katholisch?,” ZNW 57 (1966): 272–78. 122 123

4. Tyconius and Biblical Reception

33

that the effectiveness of baptism depends on the moral condition of the minister who administers the sacrament.129 Both of these works were composed between 370–375, and, according to Augustine, they led Tyconius into a conflict with his own bishop Parmenian and caused his excommunication from the Donatist community in ca. 380.130 The bishop of Hippo could not understand why Tyconius did not choose to become Catholic if his understanding of the church was catholic. As a young bishop, Augustine kept his distance from Tyconius’ Liber Regularum, but when in 426 he decided to complete his interrupted book De doctrina Christiana, he summarised Tyconius’ work and recommended it for his clergy, calling Tyconius a defender of the Catholic Church against the Donatist schism.131 In fact, Augustine’s ecclesiology, eschatology, soteriology and hermeneutics were deeply influenced by Tyconius.132 The main work that will enable us to explore Tyconius’ hermeneutics is precisely his Liber Regularum, which is considered to be the earliest systematic manual of scriptural interpretation ever written by a Western Christian theologian. This book is not an organic and systematic work, but also contains considerations and reflections that display the theological problems of Tyconius’ time.133 We shall see that the seven rules – De Domino et corpore eius (On the Lord and his body), De Domini corpore bipertito (On the bipartite body of the Lord), De promissis et lege (On the promises and the law), De specie et genere (On the particular and the general), De temporibus (On times), De recapitulatione (On recapitulation), De diabolo et eius corpore (On the Devil and his body) – are not only a hermeneutical guide for the interpretation of Scripture, but titles under which Tyconius developed his own vision of the church, human beings and temporality. 129 See Gennadius, Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis 18 (PL 58.1071–72A). See also Luisa e Deniela Leoni, eds., Ticonio, Sette regole per la Scrittura (Bologna: Centro Editoriale Dehoniano, 1997), 6. 130 In Epistula 93.10.44 (CSEL 34:2.487) Augustine says that Tyconius maintained that the church was diffused throughout the whole world and that no one could be stained by the sin of another: “cum talia diceret de ecclesia de toto orbe diffusa et quod neminem in eius unitate macularent.” See also Contra epistulam Parmeniani 1.1.1 (CSEL 51.19); Fulbert Cayré, Patrologie et histoire de la théologie, vol. 1 (Paris: Desclée et Cie, 1953), 361–63; Joseph Ratzinger, “Beobachtung zum Kirchenbegriff des Tyconius im Liber Regularum,” REAug 2 (1956): 174–79. 131 See Augustine, De doctrina christiana 3.30 (CCSL 32.42). 132 See James A. Alexander, “Tyconius’ Influence on St. Augustine. A Note on their Use of the Distinction corporaliter / spiritualiter,” in Congresso internazionale su S. Agostino nel XVI centenario della conversione, Roma, 15–20 settembre 1986, SEAug 25 (1987): 205–12; Martine Dulaey, “L’Apocalypse. Augustin et Tyconius,” in Saint Augustin et la Bible. Bible de tous les Temps, ed., Anne-Marie la Bonnardière, vol. 3 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1986); Karla Pollmann, Doctrina Christiana: Untersuchungen zu den Anfängen der christlichen Hermeneutik unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Augustinus, ‘De doctrina christiana,’ PBGALT 41 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1996), 196–215. 133 See Leoni, Ticonio, 8.

34

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

The date of the work can be established with two pieces of evidence, one external and one internal. The external evidence derives from the conviction that the Liber Regularum is clearly written earlier than the second edition of Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana from 426 in which the bishop of Hippo contrasts his own time with the time when Tyconius wrote.134 The internal evidence can be deduced from a passage in the fifth rule, in which Tyconius makes calculations regarding the end time of the church’s long struggle that takes place in three days and a half – that is 350 years – after Christ’s crucifixion. This would suggest the year 383 at the latest, before which Tyconius would seem to have written his Liber Regularum. In the Latin patristic tradition, the influence of the hermeneutical rules of the Liber Regularum has a very rich history. Apart from Gennadius and Augustine, who both recognise the usefulness of Tyconius’ manual for searching and finding the profound meaning of Scripture, many ancient and medieval authors appreciate his hermeneutical principles. John Cassian (ca. 360–435), for example, summarises the fifth rule in his De incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium, without however mentioning the name of the author.135 Quodvultdeus, bishop of Carthage (died ca. 450) in the book De promissionibus speaks of Tyconius and his fifth rule.136 Cassiodorus (485–ca. 585), renowned scholar of antiquity, recommends reading and studying the Liber Regularum, but with certain caution.137 The medieval redaction of the Liber Regularum can be found in two ancient Epitomes138 on which Isidor of Seville (560–636) probably depends in his Sententiae. He does not mention Tyconius by name but says that the rules are the work of a certain wise man.139 Another author, who used the Liber Regularum is Hugh of St. Victor (1096–1141). He applies the fourth rule in his fifth book of Didascalicon and presents Tyconius’ rules in a brief summary.140 By the late Middle Ages, Nicholas of Lyra (ca. 1270–1349) in the second prologue to Postilla super totam bibliam, mentions Isidore’s review of the seven rules, to whom he also attributes the work.141 In the fifteenth century, Desiderius Erasmus from Rotterdam (1466–1536) exposes Tyconius’ rules in his Ecclesiastes sive de ragione concionandi, taking them explicitly from Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana.142 See Augustine, De doctrina christiana, 3.33. See PL 50.188–193. 136 See PL 51.848. 137 See PL 70.1422–24. 138 See Jean Baptiste Pitra, ed., Spicilegium Solesmense: complectens Sanctorum Patrum scriptorumque ecclesiasticorum anecdota hactenus opera, selecta e Graecis Orientalibusque et Latinis codicibus, vol. 3 (Paris: Didot, 1855), 397ff; Burkitt, The Book of Rules, xxi–xxvi. 139 See 1.19 (PL 83.581–86). 140 See PL 176.791. 141 See PL 113.31–34. 142 See Erasmus, Ecclesiastes, 1058F–1061C. 134 135

4. Tyconius and Biblical Reception

35

The manuscript tradition of the Liber Regularum is quite scarce. We have knowledge of five manuscripts: Codex Remensis 384 (R),143 Codex Vaticanus Reginensis 590 (V),144 Codex Parisiensis (P),145 Codex Oxoniensis (O),146 Codex Modoetianus (M),147 and one that was still available in the seventeenth century, but is now lost: Codex Claromarisci (C).148 In 1569, Johann Grynaeus issued the first printed edition of the Liber Regularum in Basel.149 Soon after, in 1575, Margarin de la Bigne reproduced the editio princeps in Sacra Bibliotheca.150 We also know that half a century later, the Jesuit, André Schott, was able to consult a new manuscript in the Abbey of Clairmarais in Saint Omer and helped to insert the Liber Regularum in the Magna Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum, published in Cologne in 1622.151 Schott’s edition was republished in 1677 in Lyon and almost a century later included by André Galland into his Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum.152 Galland’s text was later taken into account by Jacques Migne in the 18th volume of his Patrologia Latina.153 In 1894, Francis Burkitt produced a critical edition of the Liber Regularum, taking into consideration the R, V, and P manuscripts and textual testimonies of Augustine, John the Deacon and the Epitome of Monza. Burkitt’s text, although without critical apparatus, was published in 2004 in the collection of Sources Chrétiennes, thanks to the editorial work of Jean-Marc Vercruysse.154 The latest 143 See Charles Samaran and Robert Marichal, eds., Catalogue des manuscrits en écriture latine portant des indications de date, de lieu ou de copiste, vol. 5 (Paris: CNRS, 1965), 592; Henri Loriquet, ed., Catalogue general des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France. Départements, vol. 38 (Paris: Plon-Nourrit et Cie, 1904), 503–4; Burkitt, The Book of Rules, xxiv–xxvi. 144 See Jean Vezin, “Le point d’interrogation, un élément de datation et de localisation des manuscrits. L’exemple de Saint-Denis au IXe siècle,” Scriptorium 34 (1980): 195–96; Burkitt, The Book of Rules, xxvi. 145 See Philippe Lauer, Catalogue général des manuscrits latins, vol. 2 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1940), 425; Burkitt, The Book of Rules, xxvi. 146 See Falconer Madden, Herbert H.E. Craster, and Noël Denholm-Young, eds., A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1937), 994; Burkitt, The Book of Rules, xxvii. 147 See Annalisa Belloni and Mirella Ferrari, eds., La Biblioteca Capitolare di Monza. Medioevo e umanesimo (Padova: Antenore, 1974), 45–48; Burkitt, The Book of Rules, xxvii–xxviii and xxxvi–xxxix. 148 See Burkitt, The Book of Rules, xxvii. 149 See Johann Jakob Grynaeus, Monumenta Sacrorum Patrum Orthodoxographa, vol. 3 (Basel: Henricpetri, 1569), 1352–87. 150 See Margarinus de la Bigne, Sacra Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum, vol. 2 (Paris: Sonnium, 1575), 79–122. 151 See Margarinus de la Bigne and André Schott, Magna Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum et Antiquorum Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, vol. 15 (Cologne: Hierat, 1622), 125–41. 152 See André Galland, ed., Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum Antiquorumque Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, vol. 8 (Venice: Hieron, 1772), 105–29. 153 Tichoni Afri, Liber de septem regulis (PL 18.15–66). 154 Tyconius, Le Livre des Règles (SC 488).

36

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

critical edition of the Liber Regularum was prepared in 2009. The authors of this edition provide the critical apparatus that contains variants of different manuscripts, testimonies of indirect traditions, references to authors who can help to understand the text better and point out some differences compared to Burkitt’s edition.155 The variety of Old Latin Versions is certainly confusing and requires a profound comparative study of their use by different ancient authors. Burkitt notices that many of Tyconius’ longer biblical quotations agree either with some Old Latin Versions or with the Greek text. Shorter quotations, however, are often inaccurate; many passages are in the form of conscious or unconscious paraphrases, and some passages are simply quoted from his memory without verifying references.156 Tyconius’ isolation as an African schismatic deprived him of any emendation from the Greek which in turn helped him to conserve the biblical text he used.157 Another important work of Tyconius and a witness to the application of his hermeneutical rules is his In apocalypsin, composed around 385.158 Manlio Simonetti claims that the Commentary was composed prior to the Liber Regularum, hence, before 392, the date on which he situates the composition of the Liber Regularum.159 Romero-Pose rightly believes that all the commentators on the Book of Revelation depend to some extent on this African Commentary.160 In fact, we find the influence of Tyconius’ Commentary on such authors as Caesarius of Arles (ca. 470–542), Primasius of Hadrumetum (died ca. 560), Cassiodorus (485–585), Bede the Venerable (ca. 673–735), Beatus of Liébana (ca. 730–800) and Autpert Ambrose (730–784). They all admire the form and content of Tyconius’ interpretation of the Book of Revelation.161 The Venerable Bede quotes several passages from the Commentary of Tyconius and recognises him as an erudite man, who with his rules offered a great help for the understanding of Scripture. He compares him to “a rose that bloomed among

Ayán Calvo, Ticonio. See Burkitt, The Book of Rules, xli, liii. Both LR and EA were written before Jerome’s earliest translation of the Vulgate. See SC 488.82. Long quotations in LR are close to those used by Cyprian but the Latin text which Tyconius uses in EA differs from that of Cyprian and sometimes also from his own previous citations in LR. See Jesse A. Hoover, “Scripture in Tyconius,” in The Bible in Christian North Africa. Part I: Commencement to the Confessions of Augustine (ca. 180 to 400 CE), eds. Jonathan P. Yates and Anthony Dupont (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020), 297. Hoover speculates that Tyconius knowing both Latin and Greek probably made his own revision of the Old Latin text used in his EA . See ibid., 298–99. 157 See Burkitt, The Book of Rules, cviiff. 158 See Eugenio Romero-Pose, Ticonio en la historia y literatura cristiana en el Norte de África, in Africa cristiana. Storia, religione, letteratura, eds. Marcello Marin and Claudio Moreschini (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2002), 166–68. 159 See Simonetti, Hilario de Poitiers, 138. 160 See Romero-Pose, Ticonio en la historia, 159. 161 See ibid., 164. 155 156

4. Tyconius and Biblical Reception

37

thorns,”162 that is, among heretics. Unfortunately, none of the Codices with Tyconius’ Commentary are extant. We know, however, that the last time one of these Codices was seen was in the 9th century in the abbey of Saint Gallen, and later, in the 16th century, when it was consulted by Cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto.163 Many scholars – for instance, Traugott Hahn, Álvarez Campos, W. Neuss, Hayden Ramsay, Alberto Pincherle, Mateo del Álamo, Francesco Lo Bue, R. Díaz, Eugenio Romero-Pose or Kenneth Steinhauser – tried to recover Tyconius’ Commentary from various sources in which he was quoted at length.164 Lázló Mezey discovered the so-called Budapest fragments on the ninth century parchments containing Rev 6:6–13, which, according to Roger Gryson is a part of the authentic text of Tyconius’ Commentary.165 Francesco Lo Bue worked on the Turin fragments, containing two long fragments of Rev 2:18–4:1 and 7:16– 12:6, preserved in Codex Taurinensis, which are good for a reconstruction of the text, but they cannot be considered the best representatives of Tyconius’ archetype.166 Tyconius’ Commentary on the Apocalypse enjoyed its greatest popularity from the fifth through the seventh centuries and, in this way, it survived in fragments and long quotations found among the ancient authors mentioned above. The Commentary of Beatus of Liébana, appears to be the most extensive and faithful transmitter of the lost text of Tyconius’ Commentary on the Apocalypse.167 Recently, in 2011 Roger Gryson, by reconstructing the Latin Bede The Venerable, Explanatio Apocalypsis (PL 93.133). See Eugenio Romero-Pose, “El Comentario al Apocalipsis de Ticonio,” CrSt 11 (1990): 180–81. 164 See Eugenio Romero-Pose, “Una nueva edición del Comentario al ‘Apocalipsis’ de S. Beato de Liébana,” in BollClass. 3:1 (1980), 221–31; Kenneth B. Steinhauser, The Apocalypse Commentary of Tyconius. A History of its Reception and Influence (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1987), 1–20; Roger Gryson, “Les commentaires patristiques latins de l’Apocalypse,” RTL 28 (1997): 316–17. 165 See Roger Gryson, “Fragments inédits du Commentaire de Tyconius sur l’Apocalypse,” RBén 107 (1997): 189–226. 166 See Francesco Lo Bue, ed., The Turin Fragments of Tyconius’ Commentary on Revelation. Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature. New Series 7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963). 167 See Sergio Álvarez Campos, “Fuentes literarias de Beato de Liébana,” in Actas del Simposio para el estudio de los códices del Comentario al Apocalipsis de Beato de Liébana, vol. 1 (Madrid: Joyas bibliográficas, 1978), 117–62; Romero-Pose, “Una nueva edición del Comentario al ‘Apocalipsis,’” 222–24; Eugenio Romero-Pose, “La importancia de los ‘Comentarios de Beato’ en la historia de la literatura cristiana,” Comp 33 (1988): 53–91; Eugenio Romero-Pose, “Los Comentarios al Apocalipsis de Beato,” in Volumen de estudios del facsímil del Beato de Burgo de Osma (Valencia: Vicent García Editores, 1992), 59–108; Eugenio Romero-Pose, “Beato de Liébana y el Comentario al Apocalipsis,” in Beato de Liébana. Códice del Monasterio de San Pedro de Cardeña (Barcelona: Moleiro, 2001), 275– 363. See also David C. Robinson, “The Anonymous Sermo in natali sanctorum innocentium. An Antecedent Witness to Tyconian Exegesis,” Thf 42 (2011): 100; Eugenio Romero-Pose, Símbolos eclesiales en el Comentario a Apoc. 1,13–3.22 de Ticonio, (Hacia la reconstruc162 163

38

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

edition of Tyconius’ Commentary in CCSL as the Expositio Apocalypseos and providing French translation with extensive notes in CCT, made a turning point in the study of Tyconius’ works and its reception. In the second chapter of his CCSL edition168 he describes his sources and analyses them according to their importance and rank. And so, according to Gryson, the Budapest fragments, edited for the first time by him in 1997,169 preserve Tyconius’ original text and allow us to see how later commentators, like Caesarius, Primasius, Bede, or Beatus, handled their sources. Exploring the Turin fragments, which represent the most extended portion of Tyconius’ lost Commentary, he considers the edition of Ambroise Amelli (1897) but focuses on the edition of Francesco Lo Bue (1963). Gryson indicates where these fragments diverge from passages in other writers and where the author of these fragments appears to misunderstand Tyconius. Then he examines the nineteen homilies of Caesarius of Arles, edited by Germain Morin170 and the Commentary of Primasius of Hadrumetus, edited by Adams,171 paying special attention to their apparatus criticus. Cassiodorus’ Complexiones in Apocalypsin and the pseudo-Hieronymian Commemoratorium de Apocalypsi Iohannis serve as Gryson’s source, although he considers them of little value. He greatly appreciates Bede’s Commentary, who literally quotes Tyconius ten times and frequently makes references to his Commentary. The recently discovered Cambridge Gloss and related texts are also useful for the reconstruction of the lost Commentary, as well as the early medieval Commentary of Ambrosius Autpertus (730–784) who, although he used Primasius as his main source, is sometimes a more reliable witness to Tyconius than the latter. For Gryson, the Commentary of Beauts of Liébana remains the most important and pivotal source for reconstructing Tyconius’ Commentary. In the third chapter of his introduction172 Gryson explains his modus procedendi. He basically says that the electronic data-bases allow him to identify when Beatus uses other sources (like Victorinus or Apringius) than Tyconius and adds that it is difficult to explain in each case the wording chosen for his reconstruction. Johannes van Oort considers Gryson’s valuation of Beatus’ Commentary as a weak point, arguing that many parts of it may belong to Beatus himself or derive from others sources. Oort also indicates that there are many uncertainties regarding the actual contents of Caesarius’s sermons and we cannot be

ción del Comentario donatista) (Santiago de Compostela: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1978); Ayán Calvo, Ticonio, 30–31. 168 See pp. 20–73. 169 Gryson, “Fragments inédits du commentaire de Tyconius sur l’Apocalypse,” 189–226. 170 Sancti Caesarii episcopi Arelatensis Opera omnia: nunc primum in unum collecta (Bruges: Maretioli, 1937–42); repr. in CCSL 103–4, ed. G. Morin, 2 vols. (Turnhout: Brepols, 1953). 171 Primasius Hadrumentinus, Commentarius in Apocalypsin, ed. Allan W. Adams in CCSL 92 (Turnhout: Brepols), 1985. 172 See pp. 74–78.

4. Tyconius and Biblical Reception

39

sure whether Tyconius made use of the Commentary of Victorinus.173 In any case, though Gryson’s reconstruction of Tyconius’ Commentary raises many questions about his method, it is certainly a milestone in research on the ecclesial situation of North Africa in the fourth century, biblical exegesis, and understanding of the reception of the book of Revelation in the Latin Christian tradition. 4.2 Hermeneutical Elements of Tyconius’ Reception The above-mentioned two works of Tyconius that we have today in our hands, allow us to enter into a fourth century North African world and some of its ecclesiastical problems. We come to know a man, a theologian and an exegete who, risking his own ecclesial and social position, undertook an enormous effort to reconcile divided Christians. He had the courage to confront the ecclesiastical reality and look at it through the lens of Scripture, that both conflicted African parties interpreted, but understood very differently. The fundamental questions that we should ask ourselves concern Tyconius’ understanding of Scripture and the nature of the hermeneutical rules that he reveals.174 For Tyconius, the whole Scripture consists of both the Old and New Testaments

Johannes van Oort, “Tyconius’ Apocalypse Commentary, Its Reconstruction, and Its Significance for Augustine’s Doctrine of the Two Cities,” VC 72 (2018): 525. 174 It is not an easy task for the scholars to speak about Tyconius’ knowledge of the Christian literary tradition that preceded him. In his available works he does not mention any non-biblical authors by name. Jesse Hoover, taking into consideration Tyconius’ ability to read Greek and his numerous references to the Greek text of Revelation in EA , believes that he could be influenced by the broader Greek exegetical tradition, especially by the writings of Origen who, for example, also speaks about the Spirit of God who hides the meaning of the Scriptures to the majority of readers. See Hoover, “Scripture in Tyconius,” 299. Pamela Bright notes that Tyconius had read Novatians’ De Trinitate. As evidence for that she points out the christological distinction that Tyconius makes between “you are at one” (unum estis) and “you are one” (unus estis) while commenting on John 10:30 (LR I, 12.211). See Bright, Book of Rules, 177. One can also notice Victorinus of Pettau’s influence on EA what confirms Tyconius’ knowledge of the Commentarii in Apocalypsin of his predecessor. See Martine Dulaey, Victorin de Poetovio: Premier exégète Latin. Collection des Études Augustiniennes, vol. 1 (Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 1993), 339. We find also some thematic similarities between Tyconius and Tertullian. David Robinson observes that Tertullian was the first one who applied the rhetorical principals of species and genus (cf. Rule IV of LR) to the biblical text in his work De spectaculis 3.7–8 (CCSL 2.231). See David C. Robinson, “The Mystic Rules of Scripture: Tyconius of Carthage’s Keys and Windows to the Apocalypse” (PhD diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 2010), 15. Joseph Mueller notes that Tyconius uses the Christian anti-Jewish polemical tradition that preceded him. Some verses (e.g., Gen 25:23, Hos 12:2–4, Isa 1:19, 45:1) that were used by earlier writers for showing the superiority of Christianity over Judaism he reapplies to the concept of the bipartite reality of the church. See J. Mueller, “Christian and Jewish Tradition behind Tyconius’s Doctrine of the Church as Corpus Bipertitum,” TS 73 (2012): 292. 173

40

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

(universae legis)175 that constitute together “the immense forest of prophecy” (prophetiae inmensam silvam).176 The OT’s figures and events find their fullness in the NT, because the coming of Christ brought into light what previously was only foreshadowed. Tyconius uses a metaphor of growth, comparing the OT to a child and the NT to an adult: And whatever comes through the Lord is the fullness of which a part was through this same one, just as a boy who since he lacks nothing that a man has, nevertheless, is not a man, and the fullness of his body comes not by the growth of new members but by the same kind of members in him, so that he who had been a child, nevertheless may be complete.177

The Bible, for him, is a work of the Spirit, who uses his own specific, codified language that cannot be comprehended by all, but also provides rules for a proper reading and understanding. That is why Tyconius does not consider himself the inventor of the seven hermeneutical rules but rather their receiver and transmitter. In the prologue to the Liber Regularum, he reveals the purpose and logic of his work on the one hand and on the other hand, accentuates the importance of the hermeneutical rules, which he calls mystical (regulae mysticae). Tyconius communicates that the rules maintain the recesses or secrets of the entire Law, that is, the Scripture. They are like “seals” in Rev 5:1, which keep the heavenly book from profane readers and, therefore, only those who carefully apply the rules in their reading, are able to unseal and correctly interpret the divine mysteries hidden in the Bible: Necessarium duxi ante omnia, quae mihi videntur libellum regularem scribere, et secretorum legis veluti claves et luminaria fabricare. Sunt enim quaedam regulae mysticae, quae universae legis recessus obtinent et veritatis thesauros aliquibus invisibiles faciunt. Quarum si ratio regularum sine invidia, ut communicamus, accepta fuerit, clausa quaeque patefient et obscura dilucidabuntur, ut quis prophetiae inmensam silvam perambulans his regulis quodammodo lucis tramitibus deductus ab errore defendatur.178 Above everything else that occurs good to me, I considered it essential to write a little book of rules and to construct something like keys and lamps to the secrets of the Law. Indeed, there are certain mystical rules which maintain the recesses of the entire Law and make the treasures of the truth for some invisible. If the logic of these rules should be accepted, without envy, as we communicate it, anything sealed will be opened and anything obscured will be illuminated; so that anyone who walks the immense forest of prophecy with these rules, led as it were on the paths of light, may be guarded from error.

Tyconius’ use of mysticus in relation to regula is original and indicates that the real author of the rules is the Spirit of God, who using the human language LR Prol.1’. LR Prol.4’–5’. 177 LR III, 161–6: “Et quidquid per Dominum venit plenitudo est, cuius pars fuit per eundem, sicut paruulus qui, cum nihil minus habeat a viro, tamen vir non est, et per incrementa non novorum sed eorundem membrorum in eum venit plenitudo corporis, ut sit perfectus idem tamen qui fuerat paruulus.” 178 LR Prol.1–3.1’–6’. 175 176

4. Tyconius and Biblical Reception

41

sealed “treasures of the truth” (veritatis thesauros)179 in the Scripture, making it relevant for all generations. The very structure of the biblical text is, therefore, designed by the Holy Spirit who has a particular “type of narrative” (narrationis genus).180 Introducing the fourth rule, Tyconius explicitly says that the regulae mysticae have a pneumatological connotation – they are the activity of the Spirit: “we are speaking according to the mysteries of heavenly wisdom by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, who, constituting faith the price of truth, narrated mysteries, hiding the genus in the species.”181 Charles Kannengieser correctly observes that Tyconius’ mysticus did not imply any subjective experience due to those rules; it referred to the objective and proper nature of the ‘rules’ themselves. They were in Tyconius’ view divine Revelation instituted and made available in a given literary way, exclusively characteristic of Scripture. They were constitutive of the grammar assumed by the Spirit when articulating divine truth in sacred Scripture.”182

The adjective mysticus is related by a common root mystes to the mysterium hidden in the Divine Book. Tyconius actually refers to the mysterium with regard to the writing of the Scripture.183 One of the important mysteries that the Spirit codifies in the Bible is the mysterium facinoris (cf. 2 Thess 2:7a), to which Tyconius devotes a good deal of attention in both of his works. According to him, this mystery is described in Scripture, but its significance can be unveiled only by those who follow the rules indicated by him. Kannengiesser believes that “all ‘mystery’ is on the side of the ‘mystic rules’”184 and criticises Karla Pollmann who understands the qualifier mysticus only as esoteric.185 Regulae mysticae are not human laws and in themselves they are not accessible. The logic of the mystical rules, however, can be unveiled because Christ accomplished what the prophets had predicted. If these are the rules of the Spirit, then the interpretation of biblical texts must be spiritual. Tyconius maintains that these seven rules together constitute a conceptual unity in which each rule represents a particularity of the wholeness, and it is clear that they are the cornerstone of his hermeneutics. LR Prol.1’. EA II, 4379; III, 22. Cf. LR VI, 3.214, 4.118 (genere locutionis – “type of speaking”). 181 LR IV, 16–9: “Sed loquimur secundum mysteria caelestis sapientiae magisterio Spiritus Sancti, qui cum veritatis pretium fidem constitueret mysteriis narravit in speciem genus abscondens.” 182 Charles Kannengiesser, “Quintilian, Tyconius and Augustine,” ICS 19 (1994): 246. 183 See LR II, 114: “Hoc mysterio Dominus in Apocalypsi septem angelos dicit, id est, ecclesiam septiformem.” My own trans. “Because of this mystery, the Lord speaks in Revelation of the seven angels, that is, of the sevenfold church;” 131: “Hoc itaque mysterio accipiendum est per omnes Scripturas.” “In view of this mystery, therefore, it must be understood throughout all the Scriptures.” 184 Charles Kannengiesser, “Tyconius crux interpretorum: A Response to Karla Pollmann,” AugStud 29 (1998): 99–108. 185 Cf. Pollmann, Doctrina Christiana, 196–215. 179 180

42

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

The claves et luminaria (“keys” and “lamps”) proposed by Tyconius should help the reader to grasp the “intelligence” of the Scripture’s author and uncover its mysteries. Tyconius’ spiritual interpretation of 2 Thess 2:3–12, as we argue in this study, provides “keys and lamps” for the interpretation of the rest of Scripture. In this text, he finds his hermeneutical inspiration, namely, certain motifs that refer to the situation of the church in his time and are applicable to the whole church. These insights eventually became the measure for his hermeneutical system. Such a spiritual approach to 2 Thess 2:3–12 had a remarkable influence on Augustine, Gregory the Great and apocalyptic thought in the West.186 Although Tyconius appreciates a common pattern of foreshadowing and fulfilment, he does not focus much on the usual Christological typology, but develops a double typology by which a single referent had both positive and negative signification, that is, both warning and encouragement.187 This kind of typology allows him to reconcile the contrariness of certain biblical figures and make sense of transitions between two contraries or dualities. We shall now see how these transitions work in each of his rules. In our analysis of Tyconius’ hermeneutics, we follow the order proposed above, classifying his hermeneutics into three categories. First, we analyse the historical elements of his hermeneutics that determine his approach to Scripture; secondly, we examine literary elements, namely, the rhetorical and grammatical tools which he uses for creating his theological hermeneutics, that is, the notion of the corpus bipertitum (the “bipartite body”) that should be seen as the hermeneutical product. 4.2.1 Historical Level Tyconius understands both the Old and New Testaments as a necessary unity and their message as prophetical and applicable to the current situation of the local church in North Africa. The church’s universality, for him, is closely linked to the idea that all professing Christians are the people of God and form one body, which God addresses directly through the words of Scripture. These can be either words of warning or words of encouragement to the here-andnow of the church.188 Tyconius’ hermeneutical position is well summarised by Paula Fredriksen: Tyconius … dissolves the gross periodization of ‘Old Dispensation and New’ – rather, he insists that the important distinction is moral and spiritual rather than temporal. For, he argues, the dynamics of salvation, that subtle and mysterious interplay of grace, free will and divine foreknowledge, are constant across nations, times, and individuals: whether for Jacob or for the generation of the Babylonian Captivity, for Paul or for the contemporary believer, they See Hughes, Constructing Antichrist, 84. See Charles Kannengiesser, “The Interrupted De doctrina christiana,” in De doctrina christiana. A Classic of Western Culture, eds., Duane W.H. Arnold and Pamela Bright (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press 1995), 31. 188 See ibid., 31. 186 187

4. Tyconius and Biblical Reception

43

remain the same. As a process, then, salvation history is less linear than interior.… To understand the Bible is to understand the relation of prophecy, grace, and history; to understand, in brief, how God works in human time.189

The implementation of this conviction is seen in the Liber Regularum, and especially in the Expositio Apocalypseos, which for Tyconius is not only an apocalyptic or eschatological text but, above all, a text that speaks about current events in the African church. The conflict between Christians and his personal painful experience of that ecclesiological reality led him to the comprehension of history as the battleground between the true and false church, or, in other words, the battle between good and evil in the church. For that reason, the main principle of Tyconius’ hermeneutics is the belief that all exegesis has an ecclesiological goal.190 Some examples from Tyconius’ works might help us better understand his point. In the sixth rule of the Liber Regularum, Tyconius refers to Jesus’ warning about the “abomination of desolation” mentioned by Daniel (cf. Matt 24:15–16) and adds: “what Daniel said is happening now in Africa.”191 We do not know exactly what events Tyconius might have had in mind, since the Liber Regularum does not mention any specific political or religious circumstances, but there is a concrete application of a biblical event to his current situation. Several similar examples that refer to his historical and ecclesiastical context are found throughout the Expositio Apocalypseos, but again without concrete details. While commenting on Rev 3:10, Tyconius compares the African church with the events in the church of Philadelphia and claims that the whole world shall experience the Antichrist’s presence as it does in Africa.192 Again, he comes back to this same point in his comment on Rev 6:8 where he says, “what is taking place in Africa is a figure of the future Revelation of the Antichrist throughout the world, who, now, under the scale in his outstretched hand, performs works of iniquity.”193 Perhaps, Tyconius might have in mind some particular persecutions in North Africa that for him prefigure the last persecution. He confirms this again in his observations on Rev 9:5.10.14 saying: “for from Africa it will be shown what the whole church must suffer.”194 This catholic understanding of the church, by Tyconius, as one throughout the whole world is again seen in his comment on Rev 10:11: “the things she [the church] preaches in Africa are the things that she will similarly 189

159.

Paula Fredriksen, “Apocalypse and Redemption in Early Christianity,” VC 45 (1991):

190 See Karlfried Froehlich, ed. and trans. “Tyconius: The Book of Rules, I–III,” Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, in Sources of Early Christian Thought, series ed. William G. Rusch (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 26–28. 191 LR VI, 3.18–9: “Quod autem Danihel dixit in Africa geritur.” 192 See EA I, 4110–18. 193 EA II, 3546–48: “Sed quod in Africa geritur exemplum est per orbem futurae Revelationis antichristi, qui nunc sub libra manu prolata opera iniquitatis exercet.” 194 EA III, 3810–12: “Ex Africa enim manifestabitur omnem ecclesiam quid pati oporteat.” See also 357–8.

44

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

preach everywhere.”195 As we have mentioned before, this view of the church is unacceptable for his Donatist fellows. The direct reference to his African context occurs one more time in his comments on Rev 14:6–7, but clearly in view of eschatological expectations.196 For Tyconius, the events in Africa are a paradigm for the whole church. He probably identifies the figure of the Antichrist with the current reality of conflict, persecutions and martyrdom. Through exposing and interpreting the events in the African church, he wants to instruct his readers what the eschatological persecutions will look like. All these direct references to his context confirm what we have said earlier, namely, that a particular interpretative approach is determined by a personal experience. Tyconius’ spiritual journey and his intellectual combat for the survival of the church inevitably appears in his hermeneutics.197 He is not indifferent to the Christian conflict that takes place in front of his eyes. Instead of maintaining that biblical texts predict distant future events, he deduces that these biblical events happen within the church that continually wrestles with the mysterium facinoris (cf. 2 Thess 2:7a). These particular historical circumstances influence his way of reading Scripture, as he tries to find adequate answers. He emphasises the historical realisation of prophecy and de-eschatologizes the meaning of apocalyptic passages, transporting them back into the present.198 Even more, Tyconius interprets present history with the help of the Bible and not vice versa. History becomes the object of exegesis and the Bible is only an instrument. We find the same practice in most patristic authors and also in Augustine, his younger fellow citizen. We shall now see what kind of literary instruments Tyconius uses while operating on biblical texts and how he arrives at the theological hermeneutics that play a pivotal role in his understanding of the church, the human being, and temporality. 4.2.2 Literary Level All of Tyconius’ seven rules are governed by an operative mechanism consisting of transitus (transition), or sometimes reditus (return) and recessus (secret).199 In this section, we shall see three literary tools called species/genus 195 EA III, 6012–13: “Et quia postea non in Africa tantum eidem generi, sed in toto mundo praedicabit ecclesia.” 196 EA V, 29–12: “Ad hoc enim uno in loco in Africa fit, ut notum sit quod in omni gente fiet, et ecclesia, quae in parte praedicat in Africa, ea ratione in omni gente sic praedicet, cum de medio istius saeculi Babylonis exierit.” (“Indeed, for this reason it happens in every nation – and so that the church, which preaches in part in Africa, therefore might also preach in every nation when she will have come out of the midst of this age of Babylon”). 197 See Kannengiesser, “Tyconius crux interpretorum,” 106. 198 See Fredriksen, “Apocalypse and Redemption,” 163. 199 I translate recessus as ‘secret,’ because in the prologue of LR, the verbal and conceptual parallel between the “recesses of the Law” and the “secrets of the Law” is noticeable. There-

4. Tyconius and Biblical Reception

45

(rule IV), synecdoche (rule V) and recapitulationis sigillum (rule VI), which Tyconius uses in order to decode the biblical message and to prove his notion of the corpus bipertitum (the bipartite body). It does not mean that Tyconius intends to decode the biblical text by a one-to-one correspondence, but rather these hermeneutical tools serve as an interpretive ‘lens’ through which he interrogates and interprets his own situation.200 The recessus of the fourth rule are all sorts of transitus (multiformi narratione) between two grammatical notions: species (particular) and genus (general). These two hermeneutical elements show us that Tyconius supports both the historical and the figurative meaning of Scripture. Generally speaking, the species corresponds to the temporal and historical realities, and the genus corresponds to the spiritual or figurative meaning of the prophecies. The Spirit is “concealing the general in the particular” (in speciem genus abscondens) or vice versa. He “passes from the particular to the general” (ab specie in genus), “thanks to a variety of transition and order” (varietas translationis et ordinis)201 and, in this way, enables the reader to see biblical realities and situations as spiritually applicable to both the past and present times.202 Tyconius places this rule among the “mysteries of heavenly wisdom by instruction of the Holy Spirit;”203 that is why, in order to discover its recessus, “the grace of God, whose aid we ask, must aid us.”204 At the beginning of the fifth rule, Tyconius states that “frequently in the Scriptures a quantity of time is written as a mystical figure of speech, synecdoche, or as fixed numbers.”205 The divine Spirit has distributed in the Scripture numerical symbols that create the recessus, namely, a manifold transitus between “whole” and “partial” times, which can be comprehended with a rational inquiry. The exegete applies here a rhetorical figure of speech called synecdoche, where “either a part represents the whole or the whole represents fore, what is withdrawn is a secret or a mystery. See Charles Kannengiesser, “Augustine and Tyconius: A Conflict of Christian Hermeneutics in Roman Africa,” in Augustine and the Bible. The Bible Through the Ages, ed. and trans. Pamela Bright, vol. 2 (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999), 149–77 (orig. pub. Saint Augustin et la Bible. Bible de tous les Temps, ed. Anne-Marie La Bonnardière, vol. 3 [Paris: Beauchesne, 1986]). 200 Judith L. Kovacs and Christopher Rowland define decoding as “presenting the meaning of the text in another, less allusive form, showing what the text really means, with great attention to the details.” They also speak of actualisation what means reading the biblical text “in relation to new circumstances, seeking to convey the spirit of the text rather than being preoccupied with the plethora of detail.” Revelation: The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ (Malden: Blackwell, 2004), 8. 201 LR IV, 2.27–8. 202 LR IV, 19.114: “Omnia spiritaliter.” (“All things are to be considered spiritually”). 203 LR IV, 16–7: “Mysteria caelestis sapientiae magisterio Spiritus Sancti.” 204 LR IV, 14–8: “Quam ob rem Dei gratia in auxilium postulata elaborandum nobis est.” 205 LR V, 12–3: “Temporum quantitas in Scripturis frequenter mystica est τρόπῳ συνεκδοχῇ, aut legitimis numeris.”

46

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

a part.”206 Thus, the numbers in Scripture do not quantify, but rather symbolise and indicate certain spiritual truths.207 The sixth rule presents the mystic recessus called the “seal of recapitulation” (recapitulationis sigillum)208 through which the Spirit sealed the Law, that is, the entire Scripture. Tyconius identifies three ways in which the recapitulation occurs: when the Spirit speaks in a subtle way using eschatological reference to time, such as, for example, tunc (“then”), illa hora (“in that hour”), illo die (“on that day”), eo tempore (“at this time”) that also have reference to the present time;209 when there are similarities between the events described in Scripture and events of the present (futurae similitudines);210 and when “one thing is stated, but another is meant to be understood.”211 By the rule of recapitulation, Tyconius offers an interpretive key, which unlocks the prophetic or spiritual meaning of biblical narratives.212 The literal hermeneutics of Tyconius focuses on any phrase, word, or image of Scripture, that when received in its profound truth, allows the reader to imagine the unimaginable, that is, what the Spirit intended to say.213 In other words, these literal tools help us to recognise different strata of scriptural discourse, namely, to establish when and how the biblical text says more or something other than what it seems to say.214 Some Latin sequences like “habent, ait, non habebunt”215 (“he says they have, not they will have”) or “non dixit … sed”216 (“he did not say … but”) indicate that the reader should be aware that the biblical text conceals, but also reveals. The Christian reader, while searching for the profound meaning of the biblical text, has to use both reason and faith. By using ratio, one has to consider the immediate context (pro locis) of a passage and, in this way, avoid a subjective reading.217 When the passages are too obscure and difficult, the reader, Tyconius underlines, can rely on the divine assistance that comes through faith.

LR V, 13–5: “συνεκδοχή vero est aut a parte totum, aut a toto pars.” See Fredriksen, “Apocalypse and Redemption,” 159. 208 LR VI, 13–4. 209 LR VI, 26–7. 210 See LR VI, 3.16. 211 LR VI, 4.1: “aliud sonare aliud intellegi voluit.” 212 See Kannengiesser, “Quintilian, Tyconius and Augustine,” 249. 213 See Leoni, Ticonio, 14. 214 See William S. Babcock, Tyconius: The Book of Rules, SBL: Texts and Translations 31 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989), x. 215 EA III, 684–5, 152–4. 216 EA III, 1710–12; IV, 493; V, 27–8, 4337–38; VII, 1917–18. 217 See EA IV, 258–9; V, 4715; II, 72–3. 206 207

4. Tyconius and Biblical Reception

47

4.2.3 Theological Level Theologically speaking, Tyconius’ hermeneutics is nourished by Paul’s doctrine of the church as the body of Christ and his teaching on law and grace218 upon which he builds up his fundamental interpretative insight, namely corpus bipertitum. The remaining four rules (I, II, III, VII) are considered to be theological and allow us to comprehend this important element of his hermeneutics that, together with the previously discussed rules, constitute a wholeness expressed also by their symbolic number seven. The transitus from one mystical reality (the head) to another (the body)219 is explained in the first rule, where Tyconius instructs how the careful reader of the Scripture should discern whether the text refers to the Head – the Lord, or to his body – the church, or to both the Lord and his body. This operation should be done with the help of the reason (sola ratio discernit)220 that enables the entry to the recessus of the biblical terms, through which “God opens an access to the invisible treasure of Christ’s body.”221 For rule two, concerning the bipartite nature of the Lord’s body revealed in Scripture, Tyconius recommends transitus and reditus between the two parts of the body, especially when the reader confronts apparently contradictory statements regarding the same person or entity. He underlines that “a rule concerning the bipartite body of the Lord is far more necessary; and so, must be noted by us more diligently and kept in mind through all the Scripture.”222 The third rule helps to develop the proper understanding of the promises entrusted to Abraham and the law given to Moses. The body of the Lord continually participates in transitus between the promise and the law223 and “from the same image of grace and of spirit into the same.”224 The mysterious pre-existence of the church and her transitions are the recessus of this rule. Though the law addresses one body, it serves different purposes: on the one hand, it helps the left side to find God’s grace and come to repentance and, if not, bring it to

See Hughes, Constructing Antichrist, 86. LR I, 37–8: “Qua re manifestum est sola ratione videri posse quando a capite ad corpus transitum facit.” (“Therefore, it is shown by reason alone that it can be seen when it makes a transition from the head to the body”). 220 LR I, 12. 221 LR I, 76–7: “Deus aperit corpori Christi thesauros invisibiles.” 222 LR II, 12–4: “Regula bipertiti corporis Domini multo necessarior et a nobis tanto diligentius perspicienda et per omnes Scripturas ante oculos habenda est.” 223 LR III, 411–13: “Si autem constat semen Abrahae ante legem fuisse, et illud esse semen Abrahae quod ex fide est, constat et quia numquam fuit ex lege.” (“But if it is established that the seed of Abraham existed before the law, and that what is from faith is the seed of Abraham, it is established, also, that it never was from the law”). 224 LR III, 1212–14: “Ab eadem namque imagine gratiae et spiritus in eandem transisse Ecclesiam.” 218 219

48

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

just condemnation; and, on the other hand, it serves the right side, which lives not by fear but by faith, to strengthen its faith and to continue in perseverance. The recessus of the seventh rule follows the logic of the first rule, but the subject is different. In this case, the reader must discern when Scripture refers to the head – the devil and when to his body – the anti-church.225 The first and seventh rules symbolically frame Tyconius’ entire treatise and set down the fundamental division of humankind into these respective “bodies.”226 All the rules, in various ways, help Tyconius to point to the essential theological element of his hermeneutics, that is, the corpus bipertitum – the conviction that the one body of the church has two sides: a left and a right, a false and a true, “black and beautiful” (fusca et decora).227 The bipartite nature of the church which he sometimes compares, for example, with different biblical cities228 is revealed in Scripture by the Spirit. Augustine will utilise the notion of bipartition for the construction of his concepts of the Two Cities and the mixed church.229 Tyconius discovers that the reading of Scripture must be guided by its own teachings concerning the two bodies – Christ’s and the devil’s – united now in one body.230 The seven rules are not only divine operations proper to the Spirit, but also their operative power is called a “sealing of the Law” (legem signavit).231 Giancarlo Gaeta puts it in the following words:

See LR VII, 12–5. See Jean-Marc Vercruysse, “Tyconius’ hermeneutics: The way the Holy Spirit expresses itself through Scripture,” in Patristic Theories of Biblical Interpretation: The Latin Fathers, ed. Tarmo Toom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 39. 227 LR II, 104–5. 228 See LR IV, 13.114; 14.13; 15.221. 229 Augustine believed, in contrast to Tyconius, that the wicked are never with Christ and do not belong to the church, for the church belongs only to Christ and never to the Antichrist. They might only seem to belong to her, but truly they do not. In other words, Augustine made a distinction between the church as a historical institution which includes both good and evil members, and an exclusive body which consists only of the good. See De doctrina cristiana 3.32.45: “Secunda est De domini corpore bipertito, quod quidem non ita debuit appellare. Non enim re vera domini corpus est quod cum illo non erit in aeternum. Sed dicendum fuit, ‘De domini corpore vero atque permixto’ aut ‘vero atque simulato’ vel quid aliud, quia non solum in aeternum verum etiam nunc hypocritae non cum illo esse dicendi sunt, quamvis in eius esse videantur ecclesia.” Engl. trans. Augustine, De doctrina christiana, ed. and trans. R.P.H. Green (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 177: “The second rule is ‘On the Lord’s twofold body,’ but he should not have given it this title, since something that will not be with God for ever is not in fact the Lord’s body. He should rather say ‘On the Lord’s true and mixed body,’ or ‘true and apparent body,’ or perhaps something else, because false Christians should not be said to be with God even at the present time, let alone for eternity, although they appear to be within his church.” See also Ratzinger, “Beobachtungen zum Kirchenbegriff,” 182–83; James A. Alexander, “Tyconius’ Influence on Augustine,” 205–11. 230 See Peter J. Leithart, “Revelation According to the Rules,” Pro Ecclesia 23:4 (2014): 398. 231 LR VI, 12. 225 226

4. Tyconius and Biblical Reception

49

ultimately, each rule removes a seal, that is, it allows a precise interpretative operation with the applications of the case, according to a sequence that formally moves in a circular sense: from the Lord and his body to the devil and his body, like the two terms in which all the drama of salvation is contained, the conflict between promise and law, and therefore between the two parts of the body.232

The Scripture is sealed by the Spirit’s rules in order to have its many recessus withdrawn and even kept unseen by the unfaithful. That makes Scripture a divinely codified message,233 which requires special hermeneutical instruments to be opened. The reader of Scripture, therefore, by applying the rules correctly, is able to understand the peculiarities of biblical language in which ecclesiological meaning is hidden.234 These are rules of the Spirit, who is the author of Scripture and who codifies its text through obscure passages in order to prevent a superficial reading and hide certain mysteries from those who are not worthy to benefit from them. Summary This chapter, in its first part, focused on laying the foundations for the upcoming analysis. We have seen epistemological elements of a relatively new approach called ‘reception history,’ its problems, challenges and the need for collaboration with the historical-critical method. That is why this study proposes to assume a dialectical tension between historical-critical method and reception history concretised in historical-literary-theological levels as a systematic nucleus. The goal of the second part of this chapter was the presentation of Tyconius’ life and his personal experience of the church conflict reflected in a literary manner in the Liber Regularum and the Expositio Apocalypseos. The composition of the Liber Regularum goes beyond a simple desire to provide hermeneutical literary tools for the interpretation of obscure passages in Scripture. This hermeneutical manual indicates the essential task of the exegete, namely a reading of the text that is able to distinguish its different levels: from historical through typological to the theological and moral-spiritual instructions.235 Tyconius faithfully utilises these hermeneutical tools in his Expositio Apocalypseos, obscuring the eschatological value of apocalyptic and millenarian passages and affirming their historical and moral significance. According to Tyco232 orig. “In definitiva, ogni regola toglie un sigillo, cioè consente una precisa operazione interpretativa con le applicazioni del caso, secondo una sequenza che formalmente si muove in senso circolare: dal Signore e il suo corpo al diavolo e il suo corpo, come i due termini in cui è racchiuso tutto il dramma della salvezza, il conflitto fra promessa e legge, e quindi tra le due parti del corpo.” Giancarlo Gaeta, “Il Liber Regularum di Ticonio. Studio sull’ermeneutica scritturistica,” ASE 5 (1988): 123–24. 233 Kannengiesser, “Augustine and Tyconius,” 161. 234 See Froehlich, Biblical Interpretation, 27. 235 See Leoni, Ticonio, 15.

50

Chapter I: Reception History and the Interpretation of Tyconius’ Reception

nius’ hermeneutics, traditionally apocalyptic figures, like, for instance, Gog or the mysterium facinoris, refer to the church and to the unrighteous within the church, and their “appearance” is within history, not at its end.236 We should, therefore, conclude that Tyconius’ hermeneutical rules are characterised by a notion of the omnia ecclesia est (everything is the church), because Scripture is entirely about the church and her struggle with the mysterium facinoris (2 Thess 2:7a) within her midst and outside her. The language and content of 2 Thessalonians 2, and its spiritual-typological reading, help Tyconius to develop an approach to Scripture that does not just focus on the text, but on its answer to the concrete problem, which in his case is the Christian conflict. Peter Leithart notes that Tyconius’ obsessive ecclesiocentricity gives his readings a granularity that is sometimes lacking in spiritual or typological interpretation. This quality of his reading is buttressed by his more specific obsession with the problem of iniquity in the church. The mystery of iniquity is the great mystery animating both Tyconius’s ecclesiology and his hermeneutics.237

Tyconius’ hermeneutics, being ecclesiologically grounded, allows the readers of Scripture to better comprehend both the mystery of Christ and the mystery of evil in the world, the church and individual human beings. Tyconius is aware of errors that come from a superficial interpretation of Scripture, and he proposes his hermeneutics to prevent misleading sectarian exegesis that leads to conflicts. His objective is to reconcile all Christians in truth through an adequate interpretation of Scripture.

236 237

See Fredriksen, “Apocalypse and Redemption,” 158. Leithart, “Revelation According to the Rules,” 398.

Chapter II

Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12 Tyconius, like all of us, lived at a particular time – the second half of the fourth century, and in a specific place – the Northern Africa region. He was not, however, passively influenced only by specific circumstances of his time and place, but, as an attentive, intelligent, reflexive and responsible person he was able to actively question, understand and interpret them. Therefore, in the present chapter we examine the core of reception history, namely, the historical context in which Tyconius grew and acted. Those particular circumstances determined his reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12. The historical span in which we are interested precedes Tyconius’s life. We begin our analysis with the era that led to the Donatist-Catholic schism and then we examine its birth and development. We shall divide, therefore, this period of history into three phases: a) the background and the beginnings of the controversy, b) the escalation of violence and persecution, and c) the consolidation of the separation between the two churches. The goal of the threefold division in this chapter is not an exhaustive study on the controversy, but, rather, an attempt to comprehend the interpretation of history as a background to Tyconius’ reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12. According to our classification of periods, Tyconius was born in the second stage of the Donatist-Catholic conflict, but undoubtedly his mentality and vision of the world were shaped by events preceding his life. They certainly initiated in him a transformative process which formed his particular perspective of understanding 2 Thess 2:3–12. The analysis of fourth-century North Africa Christianity, together with recourse to third-century factors that influenced the development of the controversy, will help us to better grasp Tyconius’ reasons for focusing on some specific motifs of 2 Thessalonians 2, particularly verses 3 and 7, which he found particularly relevant for generating a response to his ecclesiastical situation. The dualist interpretation of third-century Christianity – on the one hand, rigorist and, on the other hand, moderate – that became consolidated in the fourth-century Donatist-Catholic controversy, shall serve us a possible setting to the motif of homo peccati (cf. 2 Thess 2:3c) chosen by Tyconius. The consequences of this conflict, consisting of violence, persecution, martyrdom, and hatred between two Christian groups, will give us some background to the motif of mysterium facinoris (cf. 2 Thess 2:7a) to which Tyconius gives significant

52

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

attention in both works. Finally, the Donatists’ striving for the pure church and their sense of superiority and election will lead us into the comprehension of the motif of discessio (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b). This historical investigation will be supported by a number of the Donatist and Catholic writings that have survived to the present day, such as sermons or Acts or Passions of martyrs. All these documents reveal many historical elements or speak of the historical context of that time and its post-perception by particular individuals or rival groups. They might allow us to have an intimate glimpse into the inner life of this ecclesial division and to see the inner dynamics that prepared the way for Tyconius’ understanding of the church, human beings, and temporality. This endeavour is certainly complex because the explanation of the controversy between two rival churches requires not only the examination of theological or religious factors, but also political, legal, social and geographical factors of Roman Northern Africa. Historical allusions, though mainly indirect, can be noticed by a careful reader in Tyconius’ works. As we have said earlier, they constituted the first level of his reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12.

1. The Background and the Beginnings of the Donatist-Catholic Controversy The first part of this chapter focuses on the background and the beginnings of the Donatist-Catholic controversy. The analysis presents the shift from the divisions that existed between Christianity and the pagan world to the divisions among Christians themselves. The change from external to internal conflict, that is, the drama of splitting within the body of Christianity, was unfortunately going to continue throughout the coming centuries. The formation of two major Christian groups in Northern Africa led to the mutual demonisation and hostility which Tyconius examines in light of the homo peccati motif (cf. 2 Thess 2:3c). For Tyconius, historical context becomes the object of exegesis and the motifs which he draws from 2 Thessalonians 2 help him to understand the reality and its meaning. 1.1 Pre-Constantinian Church Christianity arrived in North Africa in the late second century, but a half century later it was already widespread in its different regions. It is true that Christians, or rather Christian leaders, attempted to establish clear lines of division between the church and the pagan world, but, as historians of early Christianity note, there were no clear boundaries between sacred and profane in daily life. The tendency to see Christians as “internally homogenous and externally

1. The Background and the Beginnings of the Donatist-Catholic Controversy

53

bounded groups”1 seems to be not completely correct. Éric Rebillard maintains that many, if not most, ordinary Christians participated in pagan magic, games, spectacles, and even sacrificed to the traditional gods. Rebillard notices that Christianness mattered only intermittently in the everyday life of Christians. Not only did Christians share a number of identities with non-Christians, but Christians and non-Christians alike did not necessarily or consistently regard their religious allegiance as more significant than other identities.2

Timothy Barnes rightly observes that it can surely be no accident that Tertullian’s three earliest extant works De Spectaculis, De Idololatria, and De Cultu Feminarum address similar problem: how ought Christians to live a life of faith in a pagan society?3 It could be that during late antiquity people did not see themselves simply as Christians or pagans, but rather as something between these two categories, trying to figure out which practices were religious and which were not, or they “practised a situational selection of identities, that is, they did not give salience to their Christanness at all times.”4 The concept of ‘two cities,’ later developed by Tyconius and Augustine, was already alive in Africa.5 In the mentality of Cyprian (ca. 200–258) and later that of the Donatists, the acceptance of Christ meant the complete rejection of pagan religion and customs. This led to the belief that the powers of evil were personified in the Roman officials.6 A dualist mindset characterised the African church before the final split in Constantine’s time. During the reigns of Septimius Severus (193–211), Decius (249–251), Valerian (253–260), and Diocletian (284–305), divisions within the African church became deeper. Bishops and clergy were divided in their vision of Christianity. Tertullian (ca. 155–ca. 230), for example, after his conversion to Christianity in 197 stressed the distinctive nature of faith and its difference from pagan culture.7 His Rogers Brubaker, “Ethnicity Without Groups,” Arch. Europ. Sociol. 43 (2002): 164. Éric Rebillard, Christians and Their Many Identities in Late Antiquity, North Africa 200–450 CE (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012), 7. 3 See Timothy D. Barnes, Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study, rev. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 93. 4 Rebillard, Christians and Their Many Identities, 8. 5 See William H.C. Frend, The Donatist Church. A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford: Clarendon, 1952), 106. Rome or the new Babylon symbolises all that is worldly: ego, lustful passions, and extreme desire for power. Jerusalem, instead, is the city of heaven and represents the Christian community and its features: faith, selfless love, and humble servitude. Augustine’s concept of the “two cities” has an anthropological dimension because it focuses mainly on the reality of a concrete believer who has to confront himself with reality and experiences an internal conflict. 6 See ibid., 107. 7 See Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum 7 (CCSL 1.187–224): “Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? Quid academiae et ecclesiae? Quid haereticis et Christianis? Nostra institutio de porticu Salomonis est qui et ipse tradiderat Dominum in simplicitate cordis esse quaerendum. Viderint qui stoicum et platonicum et dialecticum Christianismum prot1 2

54

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

rigorism and his interest in eschatology probably attracted him to so-called Montanism (about 207), as well as his insistence on the immediacy of the Holy Spirit, which became characteristic of this movement.8 Similarly, the Donatists believed that only their church possesses the Holy Spirit9 in contrast to the ‘orthodox’ Catholic church that compromised with the evils of this world, that is, with the Roman Empire. In the period when Tertullian was in contact with Montanism his vision of the church transformed from the visible, hierarchically constituted church to a charismatic society that “must be pure and undefiled, composed exclusively of spiritual men.”10 He emphasised the need of the separateness of the church from the world which included the safeguarding of sacramental life. Tertullian considered a heretic or a person in mortal sin as abandoned by the Holy Spirit and not allowed to administer baptism.11 His teaching on the purity of the church, the necessity of re-baptism of heretics, martyrdom and moral austerity are themes later developed by the Donatists. That is why William Frend would like to see in Tertullian “the forerunner and ulerunt. Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum Jesum, nec inquisitione post evangelium. Cum credimus, nihil desideramus ultra credere. Hoc enim prius credimus, non esse quod ultra credere debeamus.” Engl. trans. Tertullian, On Prescription against Heretics, in ANF, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Reprinted 1994), 246: “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from ‘the porch of Solomon,’ who had himself taught that ‘the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart.’ Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the Gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.” See also David C. Lindberg, “Science and the Early Christian Church,” Isis 74 (1983): 509–30. 8 See Anthony C. Thiselton, The Holy Spirit – in Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries and Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 178–83. 9 See James P. Burns and Gerald M. Fagin, The Holy Spirit. Message of the Fathers of the Church, vol. 3 (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1984), 167. 10 John N. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. (New York: Continuum, 1977), 200. 11 See Tertullian, De baptismo 15 (CCSL 1.32): “haeretici autem nullum consortium habent nostrae disciplinae, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognoscere quod mihi est praeceptum, quia non idem deus est nobis et illis, nec unus Christus, id est idem: ergo nec baptismus unus, quia non idem. quem cum rite non habeant sine dubio non habent, nec capit numerare quod non habetur: ita nec possunt accipere, quia non habent.” Engl. trans. Ernest Evans, Tertullian’s Homily on Baptism (London: SPCK, 1964), 33: “whereas heretics have no part or lot in our regulations: the very fact of their being deprived of fellowship bears witness that they are outsiders. It is no duty of mine to take cognizance in them of a precept enjoined upon me: they have not the same God as we have, nor have they the one, that is the same, Christ: consequently they have not the one, because they have not the same, baptism. As they have it not in proper form, there is no doubt that they have it not at all, and there is no possibility of enumerating a thing which is not in any one’s possession. Also they cannot have it given them, since they have it not [to give].”

1. The Background and the Beginnings of the Donatist-Catholic Controversy

55

father of Donatism,”12 but this seems not completely correct. Jesse Hoover notices that Tertullian is not cited in Donatist texts as an authority, though his influence is implicitly echoed in the writings of Parmenian, Petilian, Vincent Victor, and possibly in the Liber genealogus.13 The North African church was often challenged by occasional and local persecutions, some of which were very violent. These situations are testified to in numerous stories of martyrs which help us to better understand the context of African Christians. In some cases, Christian martyrs thought of themselves as the warriors of God fighting a spiritual battle with Satan hidden in their Roman persecutors. These heroic Christians believed that remaining faithful to God by choosing to die in his name was the only way to conquer Satan. Paul Middleton argues that “in the Apocalypse, the call for Christians ‘to conquer’ always denotes a call to achieve death through martyrdom.”14 And then he explains further that “as Christians conquer the beast by their blood, they also conquer death itself, for paradoxically the call to death is in reality the call to life.”15 One example of the cosmic battle against Satan is the third century Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis. The text describes the faith of two brave women and their companions, who as catechumens were arrested and martyred in 203 at the military games in celebration of the Emperor Septimius Severus’s birthday.16 The beasts, to which the catechumens were delivered in this story, are depicted as instruments of Satan. Before an executioner finally killed Perpetua and Felicitas, Satan had provided an extremely wild cow that tossed them around and maimed them because of hostility towards their sex. The four visions which Perpetua experienced in prison helped her to come to the conclusion that her real fight was with Satan, not the beast in the arena. She understood the whole situation as the call to suffer and to die for Christ in order to defeat the forces of Evil. The persecutions of Decius began in 249, precisely when Cyprian became bishop of Carthage. The emperor had issued an edict obliging everyone to offer sacrifice to the Roman gods in the presence of a Roman magistrate. The reaction in the church in Carthage was two-dimensional. On the one hand, some Frend, The Donatist Church, 124. See also Matthew A. Gaumer, “The Evolution of Donatist Theology as Response to a Changing Late Antique Milieu,” Augustiniana 58 (2008): 177. 13 See Jesse A. Hoover, The Donatist Church in an Apocalyptic Age (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 66–73. 14 Paul Middleton, Radical Martyrdom and Cosmic Conflict in Early Christianity, LNTS 306 (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 161. 15 Ibid., 168. 16 See Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis in The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, ed. and trans. Herbert Musurillo (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 106–31. See also Thomas J. Heffernan, The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 100–36; Barbara K. Gold, Perpetua: Athlete of God. Women in Antiquity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018). 12

56

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

Christians rejected the possibility of any compromise with the persecutors and in consequence were imprisoned awaiting execution, but on the other hand, many Christians in Carthage apostatized. Flight or acts of apostasy during the persecution could perhaps be recognised as a reasonable way of surviving this difficult situation.17 Cyprian, being in exile, had to find ways to deal with persecution and to define the boundaries of the church. He wrote two major works, De lapsis and De unitate, in an attempt to solve the problem. He decided to readmit lapsi to the church after their penance and rebaptism18 and to present to the community the confessors or martyrs as an example of perfect witness and their martyrdom as the gift of God.19 Cyprian himself believed that it is a bishop’s duty to confess what he himself had witnessed and to be martyred with his flock. He was executed in 258 in the city where he had served as bishop.20 At this time, during the Decian persecution, when Fabian, the bishop of Rome, was executed in 250, Novatian (ca. 200–258) an African presbyter, theologian and writer, assumed a strong leadership role among the clergy, recommending that standards in the church not be relaxed in any way. He opposed 17 Apostasy was certainly not an easy choice for Christians and many of them had to experience an internal pain of conscience and a spiritual conflict. We should even ask could we not see apostasy in such circumstances as a kind of inner ‘martyrdom,’ of course, not in the sense of giving witness to Christ, as the etymology of the word itself would suggest, because external apostasy is always an anti-witness, but in the sense of moral suffering that a believer undergoes, perhaps ashamed of him/herself that he or she is not yet ready to give even his or her physical life for Christ and motivated by other probably right reasons, prefers to remain alive. 18 Cyprian, De lapsis 34 (CSEL 3.1.262): “Illic superset paenitentia quae satisfaciat. Qui autem paenitentiam criminis tollunt satisfactionis viam cludunt.” Eng. trans. Cyprian, Treatise III: On the Lapsed in ANF: Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, eds. James Alexander and James Donaldson, vol. 5 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 446: “In such a case there remains only penitence which can make atonement. But they who take away repentance for a crime, close the way of atonement.” 19 Cyprian, De lapsis 2 (CSEL 3.1.237): “Confessores, praeconio boni nominis claros et virtutis ac fidei laudibus gloriosos, laetis conspectibus intuemur, sanctis osculis adhaerentes, desideratos diu inexplebili cupiditate complectimur. Adest militum Christi cohors candida, qui persecutionis urgentis ferociam turbulentam stabili congressione fregerunt, parati ad patientiam carceris, armati ad tolerantiam mortis. Repugnastis fortiter saeculo, spectaculum gloriosum praebuistis Deo, secuturis fratribus fuistis exemplo.” Eng. trans. Cyprian, Treatise III: On the Lapsed, 437: “We look with glad countenances upon confessors illustrious with the heraldry of a good name, and glorious with the praises of virtue and of faith; clinging to them with holy kisses, we embrace them long desired with insatiable eagerness. The white-robed cohort of  Christ’s soldiers is here, who in the fierce conflict have broken the ferocious turbulence of an urgent persecution, having been prepared for the suffering of the dungeon, armed for the endurance of death. Bravely you have resisted the world: you have afforded a glorious spectacle in the sight of God; you have been an example to your brethren that shall follow you.” 20 See Herbert A. Musurillo, ed. and trans. Acts of Christian Martyrs, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 172.

1. The Background and the Beginnings of the Donatist-Catholic Controversy

57

the election of Cornelius, the new bishop of Rome, in 251, accusing him of being too liberal in accepting lapsed Christians. Cornelius’s attempt to institute some form of penitential process was supported by the higher clergy at Rome and Carthage, but Novatian took the side of the rigorists, rejecting the possibility of accepting into communion with the church those who had not maintained their confession of faith under persecution. He was consecrated bishop by three Italian bishops and declared himself the true Bishop of Rome. Some of his sympathisers were also ordained to the episcopate in an attempt to set up a rival hierarchy. All of them were excommunicated by a synod held at Rome the same year.21 The rigorist movement founded by Novatian was known as Novatianists in the West and the Katharoi (‘purists’) in the East. It was a community that developed its own ecclesiology, liturgical practices, and a strict discipline. They began rebaptising those who had been baptised by non-rigorist bishops.22 The Novatianists, like the non-rigorists in the church, maintained that there could be no salvation outside the one true church and that the church should be free from the unholy. The problem was in defining who the unholy were. The rigorists created a list of serious sins that could not be forgiven, and considered unrepentant sinners as unholy. The non-rigorist bishops argued that the most serious sin was the splitting of the body of Christ by a refusal of forgiveness and reconciliation. Both groups, therefore, kept accusing each other of contradicting Scripture and usurping God’s authority.23 The Christian community was divided and in 251–252 this resulted in division at the episcopal level in Carthage. Cyprian as the bishop had to deal with two other leaders – the Novatianist Maximus and the schismatic Fortunatus – who proclaimed themselves as bishops. Cyprian made many efforts to preserve the unity among African Christians, even recognising rival conceptions of the church. The Council of Carthage at Easter 251, which Cyprian convoked, established four conditions by which the lapsed could return to the Church: a) the church has the power to forgive sins committed after Baptism; b) this power extends even to the sin of apostasy; c) it is exercised by the ministry of priests; d) the sinner must confess and satisfy divine justice.24 This decision of the Council meant that the visible See Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiastica 6.43.2, in Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History. Books 6–10, eds. and trans. K. Lake and J. Oulton, LCL 265, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932). 22 See James L. Papandrea, Novatian of Rome and the Culmination of Pre-Nicene Orthodoxy, PTMS 175 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011), 62. 23 See ibid., 62–63. 24 Cyprian, De lapsis 29 (CSEL 3.1.258–59): “Confiteantur singuli quaeso vos, fratres, delictum suum, dum adhuc qui deliquit in saeculo est, dum admitti confessio eius potest, dum satisfactio et remissio [facta] per sacerdotes apud Dominum grata est. Convertamur ad Dominum mente tota et paenitentiam criminis veris doloribus exprimentes Dei misericordiam deprecemur. Illi se animia prosternat, illi maestitia satisfaciat, illi spes omnis incumbat. Rogare qualiter debeamus dicit ipse. Revertimini, inquit, ad me ex toto corde vestro simulque et ieiunio et fletu et planctu et discindite corda vestra et non vestimenta vestra. Ad Dominum 21

58

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

church was to some extent a ‘mixed body’ filled with faithful and unfaithful members. At the same time Cyprian strongly condemned those who decided to remain in their unrepentant status.25 The next persecutions were initiated by the Emperor Valerian in 257 and the Emperor Diocletian in 303. During the persecution of Diocletian, also called the Great Persecution, North Africa was under the rule of Agustus Maximian (285–305), one of the rulers of the Diocletianic Tetrarchy. This persecution was a turning point in the North African church that led to a serious schism within Christianity itself. The Proconsular Province was forced to follow Diocletian’s edict by 5 June 303. This day was named the dies traditionis. Many members of the clergy, under pressure and probably with the intention of protecting their churches and the faithful, obeyed the demands of the imperial officials and handed over copies of Scripture and church property. These clergy members and other ordinary Christians who followed the orders of the imperial officers became betrayers (traditores) of their faith. A year later in the autumn of 304, another edict was issued called the dies thurificationis, that is, the day of the ritual offering of incense as a sign of worship to the gods of the empire and of loyalty to the Emperor.26 Those who disobeyed the imperial orders were impristoto corde redeamus, iram et offensam eius ieiunio, fletibus, planctibus sicut monet ipse placemus.” Eng. trans. Cyprian, Treatise III: On the Lapsed, 445: “I entreat you, beloved brethren, that each one should confess his own sin, while he who has sinned is still in this world, while his confession may be received, while the satisfaction and remission made by the priests are pleasing to the Lord. Let us turn to the Lord with our whole heart, and, expressing our repentance for our sin with true grief, let us entreat God’s mercy. Let our soul lie low before Him. Let our mourning atone to Him. Let all our hope lean upon Him. He Himself tells us in what manner we ought to ask. ‘Turn ye,’ He says, ‘to me with all your heart, and at the same time with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning; and rend your hearts, and not your garments.’ Let us return to the Lord with our whole heart. Let us appease His wrath and indignation with fasting, with weeping, with mourning, as He Himself admonishes us.” See also John H. Taylor, “St. Cyprian and the Reconciliation of Apostates,” TS 3 (1942): 27–46. 25 Cyprian, De lapsis 33 (CSEL 3.1.261–62): “Nec vos quorumdam moveat aut error improvidus aut stupor vanus, qui, cum teneantur in tam gravi crimine, percussi sunt animi caecitate, ut nec intelligant delicta nec plangant.… Pacem sibi ultro nemine dante sumpserunt. Falsa pollicitatione seducti et apostatis ac perfidis iuncti, errorem pro veritate suscipiunt. Communicationem non communicantium ratam ducunt; hominibus contra Deum credunt, qui contra homines Deo non crediderunt.” Eng. trans. Cyprian, Treatise III: On the Lapsed, 446: “Neither let that imprudent error or vain stupor of some move you, who, although they are involved in so grave a crime, are struck with blindness of mind, so that they neither understand nor lament their sins.… They have taken peace for themselves of their own accord when nobody granted it; seduced by false promises, and linked with apostates and unbelievers, they take hold of error instead of truth: they regard a communion as valid with those who are not communicants; they believe men against God, although they have not believed God against men.” 26 Augustine, Contra Cresconium grammaticum et Donatistam 2.22.27 (CSEL 52.325– 582): “‘Vestra – inquis – per vestros maiores traditionis et thurificationis, et per vos persecu-

1. The Background and the Beginnings of the Donatist-Catholic Controversy

59

oned and then executed. The great majority of Christians followed the imperial orders and became apostates. Bishops generally tried to discourage fanatical zeal that would provoke reprisals from the authorities. Many of them admitted to having handed over the Bible to the officials and several bishops managed to escape. Augustine notes in his Breviculus collationis cum donatistis that bishop Mensurius of Carthage, instead of turning over the sacred Scriptures to the Roman authorities, submitted some heretical tomes.27 For many Christians, however, this persecution was seen as another chance to fight against the powers of evil in view of the approaching end of the world. A good number of Carthaginian Christians pretended to have copies of the Scriptures in order to create a pretext for being imprisoned or martyred.28 The end of the Great Persecution in March 305 did not bring peace to the church in North Africa, but more factions and internal conflicts. After two years of severe external persecution, the internal situation in the church changed diametrically. Many bishops did not require the re-baptism of the lapsed and questioned the sense and value of martyrdom. In Cirta, the capital city of the Berber kingdom of Numidia, after the death of the Bishop Paulus, peasants, quarry workers, and women of the town elected the sub-deacon Silvanus as their bishop. His episcopal consecration took place during the council of Cirta on 5 March 305. Among the participants of the synod were several bishops traditores and Silvanus, actually, was one of them. The conflict of opinions and beliefs reached its climax after the death of Mensurius in 311, when the bishops from Africa Proconsularis, disregarding the tradition that the Numidian primate was to preside at the consecration of the Carthaginian bishop, elected and consecrated Caecilian by themselves. The Numidians did not recognise this election due to the fact that one of Caecilian’s consecrators was Felix of Apthugni, who had been a traditor during the Great Persecution. In consetionis crimine damnata conscientia est’. De traditoribus quidem et thurificatoribus qui fuerint qui hoc nefas admiserint, non Scripturis sanctis, sed famae hominum credidistis.” See also Pamela Bright, “Church, North Africa, 312 to 430,” in Augustine through the Ages. An Encyclopedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 185. 27 See Augustine, Breviculus collationis cum donatistis, 3.13.25 (PL 43.638): “Tunc Donatistae aliquantum praelocuti sunt, quod Mensurius qui fuerat ante Caecilianum Ecclesiae Carthaginiensis episcopus, tempore persecutionis tradiderit persecutoribus sanctas Scripturas. Et hoc ut probarent, legerunt eius epistolam ad Secundum Tigisitanum datam, qui tunc habebat primatum episcoporum Numidiae. In qua epistola videbatur Mensurius velut de suo crimine confiteri: qui tamen non scripserat se sanctos codices tradidisse, sed potius ne a persecutoribus invenirentur abstulisse atque servasse; dimisisse autem in basilica Novarum quaecumque reproba scripta haereticorum, quae cum invenissent persecutores et abstulissent, nihil ab illo amplius postulasse.” 28 See ibid., 3.13.25 (PL 43.638): “In eisdem etiam litteris lectum est, eos qui se offerrent persecutionibus non comprehensi, et ultro dicerent se habere Scripturas, quas non traderent, a quibus hoc nemo quaesierat, displicuisse Mensurio, et ab eis honorandis eum prohibuisse Christianos.”

60

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

quence, the council of seventy Numidian bishops, presided over by their primate Secundus of Tigisis, named Majorinus as the primate of Carthage.29 One of the martyr stories that presents events occurring in the year 303 to 304 in Abitinia, a town near Carthage, is the Passio Datiui, Saturnini presbyteri et aliorum, known as the Acts of the Abitinian Martyrs.30 The bishop Fundanus of Abitinia, obedient to the first edict of Diocletian, handed over all the Scriptures to the Roman officials but his congregation resisted the government’s order and continued to gather together under the leadership of the presbyter Saturninus. The resistance to the second more severe edict, the dies thurificationis, resulted in the arrest of many Abitinians. They were led to the prison in Carthage. The author of the text describes the arrival of the confessors’ friends to the prison with provisions of food and water. At the same time, he accuses the bishop Mensurius and his deacon Caecilian of preventing them from entering the prison in order to help their companions. The bishop and the deacon are depicted as persecutors of the martyrs. The Acts does not mention, however, that the law issued by Augustus Licinius (308–324) prohibited feeding those sentenced to starvation.31 Tilley notices that the Acts of the Abitinian Martyrs illustrates an example of a community “that perceived itself to be outside the recognised church structure.”32 The Acts glorifies martyrs, presenting them as the “bravest soldiers of Christ” and “unconquered warriors” who take part in the “celestial conflicts.”33 The persecutors are typologically compared with Antiochus Epiphanes, the oppressor of the Maccabees.34 The Acts sets up an eschatological view of the times, which are characterised by spiritual combat, where the battle is fought not against human forces but against the devil who attacks the community from outside.35 The story appears to be antihistorical, that is, it surpasses its historical situation and the historical identity of the characters – “the past is projected onto the present, which is melded with the future” Tilley observes.36 This is precisely what Tyconius was to understand by the rule of Recapitulation connecting various times. The apocalyptic language of the story like “battles See Frend, The Donatist Church, 10–12. The Acts survived in two recensions. The Donatist version (PL 8.689B–703B) supports their tendencies and conventionally called the Catholic version (PL 8.703C–15B) is a heavily edited version useful for Catholic propaganda. The anti-Catholic version of the story circulated during the period of the first persecution of the Donatists. See Maureen A. Tilley, The Bible in Christian North Africa. The Donatist World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 57. 31 See Eusebius Pamphilus, The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine. From AD 306 to AD 337, CRES 8 (Merchantville, NJ: Evolution Publishing, 2009), 91–92. 32 Maureen A. Tilley, “Scripture as an Element of Social Control: Two Martyr Stories of Christian North Africa,” HTR 83 (1990): 393. 33 Passio Datiui, Saturnini presbyteri et aliorum 1 (PL 8.689B–C). 34 See ibid., 6; 16 (PL 8.693D; 700B). 35 See ibid., 2; 6 (PL 8.690B; 692C). 36 Tilley, “Scripture as an Element of Social Control,” 393. 29 30

1. The Background and the Beginnings of the Donatist-Catholic Controversy

61

and victory,” “the army of the Lord God,” “the army of faith,” or “an immense army of confessors from all sides to the field of battle”37 intensifies the impression that the final day is at hand and it is the final battle that the martyrs have to conduct at the end of the age. Additionally, in the words “when the war trumpet sounded in the city of Abitina, the glorious martyrs set up the standards of the Lord” we find an echo of Revelations 8–11. One can perceive from the text an urgent call to arms for the struggle. Interestingly, the liturgical gatherings of the martyrs are presented in the same terms as the solemn assembly of Israel, the collecta,38 (cf. Lev 23:26; Deut 16:8; 2 Chr 7:9; Neh 8:18; Exod 12:3, 16:10) where the proper sacrifice was offered in the midst of an idolatrous people. Those who are rejected and persecuted by the powerful consider themselves the true church. The main theme of the Acts is the division between true martyrs with their supporters and other Christians. Tilley notes that “the milieu in which the Acts were written is a church community that had drawn lines in the sand as early as 305 on two intertwined issues, the traditio or the betrayal of the Bible and the importance of martyrdom.”39 According to Tilley some elements in the text suggest that the Acts have a Donatist origin and were useful for their propaganda. One of these elements is the statement of excommunication that says: “if anyone who communicates with the traitors, that person will have no part with us in the heavenly kingdom.”40 This statement became the slogan of the Donatists. Not only eucharistic communion but any physical contact of ‘pure sons and daughters’ with traditores was viewed as unclean.41 The Acts passes on the message of the martyrs who cry for a necessary separation from the Roman authorities and from pseudo-Christians like bishop Mensurius and the deacon Caecilian. The division is justified by Paul’s exhortation to the faithful Passio Datiui, Saturnini presbyteri et aliorum 1; 2 (PL 8.689C; 690A, B). See ibid., 4 (PL 8.692A, B, C), 6 (PL 8.693C, 694A), 8 (PL 8.694D–95A), 9 (PL 8.695C), 10 (PL 8.695B), 11 (PL 8.695C, 696D), 15 (PL 8.699B), 16 (PL 8.700A). 39 Tilley, The Bible in Christian North Africa, 58. 40 Passio Datiui, Saturnini presbyteri et aliorum 18 (PL 8.701B): “Si quis traditoribus communicaverit, nobiscum partem in regnis caelestibus non habebit.” Eng. trans. Maureen A. Tilley, trans., Donatist Martyr Stories. The Church in Conflict in Roman North Africa, TTHC 24 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1996), 46. 41 See ibid., 19 (PL 8.702A): “Quamobrem fugienda bonis et vitanda est semper religiosis conspiratio traditorum, hypocritarum domus, Pharisaeorumque sententia.” Eng. trans. Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories, 47: “On account of this, the good must flee the conspiracy of the traitors, the home of hypocrites, and the judgments of the Pharisees, and the devout must always avoid them;” ibid., 20 (PL 8.702–703): “Fugienda est ergo et execranda pollutorum omnium congregation vitiosa, et appetenda omnibus beatissimorum martyrium succession gloriosa, quae est Ecclesia sancta, una et vera catholica.” Eng. trans. Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories, 48: “Therefore, one must flee and curse the whole corrupt congregation of all the polluted people and all must seek the glorious lineage of the blessed martyrs, which is the one, holy, and true Church.” 37 38

62

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

of Corinth (cf. 2 Cor 6:13–18) to excommunicate the worst sinners.42 The Acts presents only two alternatives: either absolute fidelity or damnable idolatry. This is precisely the point with which Tyconius disagrees and which provokes him to use the motifs of 2 Thess 2:3–12 in order to set up his own vision of the church that embraces both saints and sinners. 1.2 Constantinian Church In the successive development of events, an important role was played by Flavius Valerius Constantius, born in Naisuss in 272, who became the first Roman emperor converted to Christianity. His father was Flavius Constantius, the Caesar of the west and his mother Helena, a Greek woman from Helenopolis of Bithynia. After his father’s death in 306, Constantine was acclaimed emperor by the army at York in Britain, and he reigned until 337. In 312 he defeated Maxentius, the son of the Augustus of the west, at the battle at Milvian Bridge. As a result, he assumed the rule of the western half of the Roman Empire. A year later, Constantine, together with Licinius, the ruler of the eastern half of the empire, issued the Edict of Milan legalising Christianity and making it the religion of the emperor himself. In 324, after defeating Licinius in battle at Chrysopolis, Constantine became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire.43 In April 313, when Constantine was still the co-emperor, Anullinus, the Proconsul of Africa, wrote him a letter explaining the complex situation of the church in Carthage. Driven mainly by economic factors, since Africa used to supply Rome and Italy with oil and cereals, Constantine decided to deal with the problem immediately. Without taking into consideration what the opposing party had to say, the emperor recognised Caecilian as the lawful bishop of Carthage and decided to support him morally and financially. He ordered the city councils to restore to the church the lands which had been confiscated during the persecution.44 Caecilian himself was assured by Constantine that he was regarded as the “representative of the most holy Catholic religion” and enjoyed 42 See Passio Datiui, Saturnini presbyteri et aliorum 19 (PL 8.701D–2D). In 2 Cor 6:17 (cf. Isa 52:11; Jer 51:45; Rev 18:4) we find the words: “Propter quod discedite de medio eorum et separamini” which express Tyconius’ concept of the final separation of good and evil brothers that he draws from 2 Thessalonians 2: v.3b (discessio) and v. 7c (de medio). 43 See Charles M. Odahl, Constantine and the Christian Empire (London: Routledge, 2004), 1–11; Eusebius, The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, 61–62. For other useful biographical studies on Constantine see, for example, Terry Julian, Constantine, Christianity, and Constantinople (Oxford: Trafford Publishing, 2005); George P. Baker, Constantine the Great and the Christian Revolution (New York: Cooper Square, 2001); Hartwin Brandt, Konstantin der Große. Der erste christliche Kaiser (München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 2006); Wes Howard-Brook, Empire Baptized: How the Church Embraced What Jesus Rejected, 2nd–5th Centuries (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2016). 44 See Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 10.5. Greek text, Krisopp Lake, John E. L. Oulton, and Hugh J. Lawlor, eds., on: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/

1. The Background and the Beginnings of the Donatist-Catholic Controversy

63

the full support of his representatives in Africa. According to Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica, the emperor sent letters to Anullinus, Proconsul of Africa, and Patricius the Vicarius praefectorum, pointing out that he “had heard of the attempts of some irresponsible individuals to corrupt the congregation of the most holy and Catholic Church with vile and base falsifications” and ordered such people to be hauled into court.45 In 313, Constantine declared an exemption for the clergy in communion with the bishop Caecilian from municipal munera (duty, obligation), which meant that the Caecilianist clergy were freed from burdensome public duties such as service as a city magistrate.46 The opponents of Caecilian disagreed with this verdict and approached Constantine personally asking him for a just trial. The Emperor granted them at least part of their request, ordering that an equal number of Caecilian’s and Majorinus’ bishops be sent to Rome to meet him. In the meantime, Majorinus died and his successor Donatus went to Rome.47 After the first session, Donatus was excluded from the meeting, and then, at the third session, his idea of the rebaptism of lapsed clergy was rejected as a dangerous innovation. He was further condemned for disturbing discipline and causing a schism. The label ‘Donatist’ was meant to identify the party of the schismatic group that followed Donatus in contrast to its opponents who claimed to be the ‘Catholic’ party, that is, in communion with the ‘universal’ church.48 The Donatist clergy refused to accept 45 Ibid., 10.6.: καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἐπυθόμην τινὰς μὴ καθεστώσης διανοίας τυγχάνοντας ἀνθρώπους τὸν λαὸν τῆς ἁγιωτάτης καὶ καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας φαύλῃ τινὶ ὑπονοθεύσει βούλεσθαι διαστρέφειν. 46 See ibid., 10.7.: διόπερ ἐκείνους τοὺς εἴσω τῆς ἐπαρχίας τῆς σοι πεπιστευμένης ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ᾗ Καικιλιανὸς ἐφέστηκεν, τὴν ἐξ αὐτῶν ὑπηρεσίαν τῇ ἁγίᾳ ταύτῃ θρῃσκείᾳ παρέχοντας, οὕσπερ κληρικοὺς ἐπονομάζειν εἰώθασιν, ἀπὸ πάντων ἅπαξ ἁπλῶς τῶν λειτουργιῶν βούλομαι ἀλειτουργήτους διαφυλαχθῆναι, ὅπως μὴ διά τινος πλάνης ἢ ἐξολισθήσεως ἱεροσύλου ἀπὸτῆς θεραπείας τῆς τῇ θειότητι ὀφειλομένης ἀφέλκωνται, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἄνευτινὸς ἐνοχλήσεως τῷ ἰδίῳ νόμῳ ἐξυπηρετῶνται, ὧνπερ μεγίστην περὶ τὸ θεῖον λατρείαν ποιουμένων πλεῖστον ὅσον τοῖς κοινοῖς πράγμασι συνοίσειν δοκεῖ. Eng. trans. Hugh J. Lawlor and John E.L. Oulton, Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea: The Ecclesiastical History and the Martyrs of Palestine, vol. 1 (London: SPCK, 1927), 320: “those persons who, within the province committed to thee [i.e. Anullinus], in the Catholic Church over which Caecilian presides, bestow their service on this holy worship – those whom they are accustomed to call clerics – should once and for all be kept absolutely free from all the public offices, that they not be drawn away by an error or sacrilegious fault from the worship they owe to the Divinity, but rather without any hindrance serve to the utmost their own law. For when they render supreme service to the Deity, it seems that they confer incalculable benefit on the affairs of the State.” 47 See ibid., 10.5; Bright, “Church, North Africa,” 186. 48 See, for example, Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas 1.4.5 (CSEL 51.150–51). There is an ongoing scholarly discussion with regard to the label “Donatists.” Jean-Paul Brisson claims that this party could very well have been labelled “Cyprianism” instead of “Donatism,” because of their closer legacy to Cyprian than the “Catholics.” See Jean-Paul Brisson, Autonomisme et Christianime dans l’Afrique romaine: Dans L’Afrique Romaine de

64

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

Caecilian as their bishop and appealed once more to the emperor. In fact, the followers of both, Caecilian and Donatus, claimed to be ‘Catholic,’ and no Donatist called himself a ‘Donatist.’ As Hoover notes, “it was precisely the term ‘Catholic’ that proved contentious. It was an inherently exclusive title; the party that successfully incorporated the name into its narrative would win the rhetorical war of words.”49 Both parties kept arguing that their opponents were unworthy to be named ‘Catholic,’ because they knew that it was crucial to the question of their legitimacy.50 Therefore, following Hoover’s proposal, and for an objective analysis of the historical events, it would be more correct to call each party by the “names of their forefathers:” “Caecilianists” from Caecilian and “Donatists” from Donatus.51 This decision is also supported by the reasoning of Augustine himself who shows that, already at the beginning of the schism (313), the tendency to identify a group by the name of a leader was initiated by Donatists themselves. In the discussion with emperor Constantine, the anti-Caecilian group called itself the Party of Majorinus.52 During the conference at Carthage in 411 the issue of nomenclature was still a subject of discussion and quarrel, for example, between the Donatist bishop Petilian and his ‘Catholic’ rivals Vincentius and Alypius or the Donatist Adeodatus and Fortunatianus.53 In this study, therefore, we shall use the terms ‘Donatists’ and ‘Caecilianists’ for the identification of opposing communions. Constantine was aware that the connection he formed between the church and the empire gave him the initiative and decision in regards to all ecclesiastical cases. He also felt obliged to officially confront the reality of the divided church in North Africa. In 314 he organised the Council of Arles under the presidency of Marinus, the bishop of Arles, to make final decisions regarding the dispute. In his letter to the Caecilian bishops he addressed them as fratres carissimi (“beloved brethren”), thereby signalling that he considered himself Septime Sévère à l’invasion vandale (Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard, 1958), 181; Brent Shaw argues that the category “Donatist” should be replaced with the simple label “African” or better by “the dissident Christian community.” See Brent D. Shaw, Sacred Violence: African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 5–6. See also Peter Brown, “Christianity and Local Culture in Late Roman Africa,” JRS 58 (1968): 85–95 and Paula Marone, “The Use of the Term ‘Catholic’ in the Donatist Controversy,” Pomoerium 6 (2007–8): 81–91. 49 Hoover, The Donatist Church, 21. 50 Cf. ibid., 21. 51 See ibid., 18–24 and also James J. O’Donnell, Augustine: A New Biography (New York: HarperCollins, 2006); Peter Kaufman, “Donatism Revisited: Moderates and Militants in Late Antique North Africa,” Journal of Late Antiquity 2.1 (2009): 131–42. 52 “Libellus ecclesiae catholicae criminum Caeciliani traditus a parte Maiorini” (“The Book of the Catholic Church with the Charges against Caecilian Submitted by the Party of Majorinus”). Augustine, Letter 88.2, in WSA 2.1.352 (CCSL 31A.140). 53 See Augustine, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 3.30–4 (SC 224.1004–6) and 3.123 (SC 224, 1078).

1. The Background and the Beginnings of the Donatist-Catholic Controversy

65

as one of them. In fact, Eusebius in his Vita Constantini claims that the emperor assembled church councils “as if he were a sort of universal bishop (τις κοινός επίσκοπος) appointed by God.”54 During the Council of Arles the bishops gathered by Constantine determined that Caecilian, not Donatus, was the proper bishop of Carthage. In the report to Sylvester I (314–335), the bishop of Rome, the opponents of Caecilian were described as dangerous men who had no respect for authority and tradition, and deserved condemnation. Among other decisions, the Council rejected the African custom of rebaptising heretics and approved the validity of an ordination administered by a traditor bishop. The majority of anti-Caecilians did not accept these decisions and held firm to Donatus.55 Constantine, in the letter Aeterna et religiosa to the bishops of the Council of Arles, expressed his frustration, criticising the Donatists for their stubbornness, insanity, and complicity with the devil.56 On 10 November 316, 54 Eusebius, Vita Constantini 1.44, trans. Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999). See also 4.24 where Eusebius recalls the statement of the emperor who says that he had been appointed by God: “You are bishops of those within the Church, but I am perhaps a bishop appointed by God over those outside (ἐπίσκοπος … τῶν ἐκτός).” 55 See Hugh Elton, The Roman Empire in Late Antiquity: A Political and Military History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 56–58. 56 The entire letter of Constantine in which he speaks about the errors of the Donatists appears in Optatus, S. Optati Milevitani libri VII, Appendix 5 (CSEL 26.210–11), here p. 210: “Equidem, fratres carissimi, licet haec in ipsis videantur deprehensa, nihilominus vos, qui domini salvatoris sequimini viam, patientiam adhibete, data his adhuc optione quid putent deligendum. Ac si eos in hisdem videritis perseverare, protinus cum his quos dominus dignos cultui suo iudicavit, proficiscimini et redite ad proprias sedes, meique mementote, ut mei salvator noster semper misereatur. Ceterum direxi meos homines, qui eosdem infandos deceptores religionis protinus ad comitatum meum perducant, ut ibi degant, ibi sibi mortem peius pervideant. Dedi quoque litteras conpetentes ad eum, qui vicariam praefecturam per Africam tuetur, ut, quotquot huius insaniae similes invenerit, statim eos ad comitatum meum dirigat, ne ulterius sub tanta claritate dei nostri ea ab ipsis fiant, quae maximam iracundiam caelestis providentiae possint incitare. Eng. trans. Oliver Rodie Vassall-Phillips, trans. The Work of St. Optatus: A Catholic Church History, wherein a Saint and Early Church Father Condemns the Donatists Schism after the Persecution of Christians by Roman Emperor Diocletian (All Seven Books with Appendixes) 4th kindle ed. (London: Longmans, 2018; 1st ed. 1917), 142– 43: “But, my dearest Brothers, although this wickedness has been discovered in them, nevertheless do you, who follow the way of the Lord the Saviour, show patience, and still give them a choice to choose what they may think well. And if you see that they persevere in the same courses, do you go your way, and return to your own Sees, and remember me, that our Saviour may always have mercy on me. But I have directed my men to bring these wicked deceivers of religion to my court that they may live there, and there survey for themselves what is worse than death. I have also sent a suitable letter to the prefect who is my viceroy in Africa, enjoining him, that, as often as he finds any instances of this madness, he is to send the guilty, forthwith, to my court, lest any longer, beneath so great a shining of our God, such things be done by them, as may provoke the greatest anger of the Heavenly Providence.” Cf. Noel Lenski, “Imperial Legislation and the Donatist Controversy: From Constantine to Honorius,” in The Donatist Schism: Controversy and Context, ed. Richard Miles, TTHC 2

66

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

the emperor informed Eumalius, the new Vicarius Africae, to regard Caecilian as wholly innocent and his opponents as “calumniators.” In 317, Constantine issued edicts with orders to exile the Donatist leaders and to confiscate their churches. Attempts to enforce the emperor’s order provoked open violence, attacks on churches and the massacre in the Basilica Maiorum, situated outside the city of Carthage. The bishop of Advocata and Bishop Honoratus from Sicilibba were murdered.57 These events deepened the division between the two rival churches. The Donatists, seeing the Caecilianists in a league with soldiers and pagan magistrates, were even more convinced of their own righteousness. The new face of Christianity under the patronage of the emperor was not easily comprehensible by the local people. Frend notes that the “ordinary African was unable to grasp the fact that the Proconsuls and Imperial officials who oppressed him, and whom he had learnt to regard as emissaries of Satan, were now in ‘Christian times’ to be reverenced as servants of God.”58 Fredriksen Landes puts it in even stronger words by saying that “from the perspective of John of Patmos, the ‘Beast’ had entered the church.”59 In 321, Constantine recognised the hopelessness of attempting to restore religious unity in Africa and declared tolerance for the Donatists, encouraging Caecilianist bishops and the laity of Africa to endure the Donatists’ insults with patience and mercy and to reserve all vengeance to God.60 Under the skilful leadership of Bishop Donatus, his movement found many supporters and spread to different regions of North Africa, building new basilicas and churches.61 Constantine expressed once again his confidence in Caecilian by delegating him to represent the emperor at the Council of Nicaea in 325. Five years later, in February 330, the emperor wrote from Serdica his last letter of encouragement to the Caecilianist bishops. The Donatists, again, could not accept that the apostates of the pre-Constantinian persecutions had been recognised as legitimate ecclesiastical authority. In the last years of Constantine’s reign, Donatus attempted to maintain and promote the independence of his church from the emperor and his officials. He also felt a need to clearly explain

(Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2018), 201. Scholars find it somewhat doubtful if the letter was actually written by Constantine or by a cleric in Constantine’s immediate entourage, possibly Hosius, whom Donatists accused of having influenced Constantine against them. There are also some strong comments in the letter to the Divine Institutes of Lactantius. See Elizabeth De Palma Digeser, The Making of a Christian Empire. Lactantius & Rome (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000), 170. 57 See Sermo de passione sanctorum Donati et Advocati 6 (PL 8.752–58). Eng. trans. Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories, 56–57; Lenski, “Imperial Legislation,” 174. 58 Frend, The Donatist Church, 153. 59 Fredriksen, “Apocalypse and Redemption,” 155. 60 See Lenski, “Imperial Legislation,” 205–6. 61 See John Whitehouse, “The Course of the Donatist Schism in Late Roman North Africa,” in Miles, The Donatist Schism, 24.

1. The Background and the Beginnings of the Donatist-Catholic Controversy

67

to his followers that the true schismatics were the Caecilianists and that the Donatists’ isolation in Africa was a sign of God’s election. The Sermo de passione Ss. Donati et Advocati, probably of Donatus’s authorship, is an important witness to the demarcation of lines between Caecilianist and Donatist communities. Some scholars date it to around 320,62 and others between 325 and 343.63 The sermon narrates Constantine’s attempts to subject Donatists to Caecilianist leadership and refers precisely to the events that took place between 317 and 321. In this period “membership in the proand anti-Caecilianist groups was still fluid.”64 The author of the sermon recounts how the Roman troops of the two officers Leonitus and Ursatius gathered the Donatists into the Basilica Maiorum at Carthage and then performed a mass execution. He mentions also the assassination of two unnamed bishops, one of Sicilibba, killed by the tribune Marcellinus, and the other from Avioccala, murdered by Caecilianists.65 The Donatist preacher, in order to help his assembly to identify their enemies, describes the Caecilianists as “ministros Antichristi,”66 for although they claim to be lovers of “unity,” they are really “liars who use the name of Christ,” and “wolves in sheep’s clothing.”67 The preacher’s aim is not to encourage the congregation to remain strong under persecution, but rather to make them able to recognise the deception: “it is indeed easy for the unwary to be deceived by liars who use the name of Christ.”68 The enemies of the Donatists are portrayed as a conflated ‘other,’ where the main adversary is the devil, who in the tempora pacis cannot overcome the Christians by direct persecution and hence uses his followers who, through deception and enticements, oppress the true Christians. The Caecilianists under Constantinian patronage are presented in the sermon as a devil’s trap from 62 Cf. Monceaux, Histoire Littéraire, 61–62; Frend, The Donatist Church, 321; Tilley, The Bible in Christian North Africa, 61. 63 Cf. Jean-Louis Maier, Le dossier du Donatisme: Des origines à la mort de Constance II (303–361) vol. 1 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1987), 200; Ernst L. Grasmück, Coercitio. Staat und Kirche im Donatistenstreit, BHF 22 (Bonn: Röhrscheid, 1964), 85, n. 403. 64 Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories, 51. 65 See ibid., 51–53. 66 Sermo de passione sanctorum Donati et Advocati 1 (Maier 1.202): “Quoniam quidem, ut facile est, incautos appellatione nominis Christi a fallacibus decipi, ita necesse est fugere hoc nomen ministros Antichristi.” Eng. trans. Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories, 52–53: “As it is indeed easy for the unwary to be deceived by liars who use the name of Christ, so also it is necessary for the ministers of the Antichrist to flee from that Name.” Alan Dearn considers “hoc nomen” as subject of the final indirect statement applying the following sense: it is the nomen Christi which must flee the ministri Antichristi. Cf. Alan Dearn, “Donatist Martyrs, Stories and Attitudes,” in Miles, The Donatist Schism, 95, n. 162. 67 Sermo de passione sanctorum Donati et Advocati 1 (Maier 1.202): “ubi professa hostilitas non est,” and 3 (Maier 1.204), referring to Christ’s “love of unity”: “Christus, inquit, amator unitatis est; unitas igitur fiat!”. Eng. trans. Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories, 53. 68 Ibid., 1 (Maier 1.201–02): “Quoniam quidem, ut facile est, incautos appellatione nominis Christi a fallacibus decipi.” Eng. trans. Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories, 52–53.

68

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

which the believers should stay away: “Not only does he [the devil] delight these miserable men with vainglory but he also ensnares the greedy by royal friendship and earthly gifts.”69 The lapsi are presented by the preacher as “the deserters of the heavenly sacraments.”70 A literary and propaganda war against Caecilianists was spreading in Donatist Africa. The clergy of the remote areas were instructed through letters how they should behave and what they should believe. Donatus, followed by nearly 300 bishops, kept preserving the African Christian tradition of separateness from the world, embodied in the Roman authorities and those connected to them – the Caecilianists. He saw his church as the elected group surrounded by the unregenerate,71 perceiving other Christians as enemies and allies of the Antichrist. The fear among the Donatists was not about the apostasy of some of the members of their community, but a temptation of assimilation on account of financial or social benefits. Such a situation naturally led to tensions and hatred among Christians, which even escalated after Constantine’s death. This form of mutual antagonism that kept developing could be characterised as sacred or religious violence.72

2. The Escalation of Violence and Persecution During the pagan era, the North African church had become familiar with persecution and martyrdom. Christians learned how to resist the Roman authorities and various imperial laws in order to preserve their fidelity to Christ. Martyrdom, as we have seen earlier in the examples of the Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis and the Passio Datiui, Saturnini presbyteri et aliorum, was conceived not only as a heroic act of faith, but also as a cosmic battle against the devil. In spite of the legitimation of Christianity, the persecutions by the empire did not end, but now, in the eyes of the Donatists, they were performed by socalled nominal Christians. In other words, the devil attacked the church not only from outside but from within. In this section, we shall see the significance of a group associated mainly with the Donatists called Circumcellions, which used physical violence as its own way of protest against the Christians associated with the empire. We shall also consider the impact of the Macarian persecution and Julian’s decisions on the Caecialianist-Donatist relationship. We have to presume that some of Ibid., 2 (Maier 1.203): “Non solum oblectans inani gloria miseros, sed et regali amicitia muneribusque terrenis circumscribens auaros.” Eng. trans. Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories, 54. 70 Ibid., 2 (Maier 1.203): “sacramentorum caelestium desertores.” Eng. trans. Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories, 54. 71 See Frend, The Donatist Church, 165–67. 72 See Michael Gaddis, There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 103–30. 69

2. The Escalation of Violence and Persecution

69

these events were directly experienced by Tyconius. As a young man, he found himself in the midst of Christian malice and hostility, where Christ’s commandment of love seemed to be forgotten or ignored. In his works, Tyconius will describe this horrible situation in the church in spiritual terms with the help of the motif of mysterium facinoris (cf. 2 Thess 2:7a), and he will try to understand why God permitted it to happen. 2.1 Circumcellions The social dissatisfaction in Roman North Africa kept increasing, and around the year 340 began the peasants’ revolt, which gave birth to a radical and revolutionary group of Circumcellions. We know about them only from the Catholic writers like Optatus of Milevis and Augustine of Hippo who attempted to present them as fanatics associated with the Donatist church. The members of this group, apparently, called themselves milites Christi (“soldiers of Christ”) or Agonistici (“warriors”),73 but their opponents labelled them Circumcelliones. This name could denote those who used to gather around the rural shrines of martyrs (circum cellas)74 or Circuitores (“wanderers”).75 Their devotion to the cult of martyrs included a desire to attain martyrdom for themselves, sometimes even by suicide. They had the habit of disturbing city festivals by throwing themselves upon the sharp weapons in order to claim the martyr’s prize.76 73 See Augustine, Enarratio in Psalmos 132.6 (PL 37.172); Optatus, S. Optati Milevitani libri VII 3.4 (CSEL 26.81): “circumcelliones agonisticos nuncupans.” 74 See Augustine, Contra Gaudentium donatistarum episcopum 1.28.32 (CSEL 53.231). See also Yvette Duval, Loca Sanctorum Africae. Le culte des martyrs en Afrique du IVe au VIIe siècle, 1 vol. (Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 1982), 328–31. 75 See Filastrius, De haeresibus 57.1 (CH 1.84); Possidius, Vita Augustini 10 (PL 32.41– 42). See also Sergio Calderone, “Circumcelliones,” ParPass 22 (1967): 94–109; William H.C. Frend, “Circumcelliones and Monks,” JTS 20 (1969): 539–47; Leslie Dossey, Peasant and Empire in Christian North Africa (Barkeley: University of California Press, 2010). It is worth noting that from the sixth to the twelfth centuries, wandering Catholic ascetics in western Europe were also called circumcelliones. 76 Augustine, Contra Gaudentium donatistarum episcopum 1.28.32 (CSEL 53.230–31): “Eorum est enim hominum genus, cui hoc malum persuadere potuistis, qui sole[ba]nt haec et antea facere, maxime cum idololatriae licentia usque quaque ferueret, quando isti paganorum armis festa sua frequentantium irruebant. Vouebant autem pagani iuvenes idolis suis quis quot occideret. At isti gregatim hinc atque inde confluentes tamquam in amphitheatro a venatoribus more immanium bestiarum venabulis se oppositis ingerebant, furentes moriebantur, putrescentes sepeliebantur, decipientes colebantur.” My own trans. “There is in fact this category of men, in whom you could insinuate the idea of committing this crime, and they were already accustomed to such things, especially when the licentiousness of the idolatrous cult was going crazy everywhere, and with the weapons of the pagans they broke into the crowd celebrating their feasts. The young pagans then offered their idols the victims that each one managed to kill. These fanatics, in hordes, flocked from all sides: like ferocious beasts, driven by the hunters into the amphitheatre, they ventured on the spits that were placed in

70

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

Some of them believed that a fixed number of martyrs was needed and the last of them would initiate the end of times and the triumph of the true church.77 Many Donatists and Circumcellions perceived the ‘world’ as being ruled by Satan, who acted through the Caecilianists, corrupted officials, and oppressive landowners. The Circumcellions believed that they possessed autonomous judicial power, for instance, to attack and punish wealthy Caecilianist landowners who were linked with the imperial order that enabled the exploitation of the poor. Through these means of revindication they attempted to institute a more just social order.78 Optatus describes their activity in the following way: No one could be secure in his own possessions; the records of debts had lost their force, no creditor at that time had the freedom to enforce payment … Even the safest journeys could not take place because masters, thrown out of their vehicles, ran in servile fashion before their own retainers, who were sitting in their masters’ place.79

Brent Shaw presumes that the Circumcellions could simply be riotous youths who drank excessively and were inclined to violence.80 Their violence was visible in other forms of misbehaviour, like sexual immorality or beating Donatist clerics who had converted.81 They considered converters to Caecilianism as traditores or lapsi of the Diocletian persecution and used to destroy their houses or even, following the OT punishment for apostasy, to stone them.82 According to Augustine’s testimony, Circumcellions believed that their mission was to separate good and evil people in order to keep the Donatist church perfectly pure.83 They wanted to establish their own understanding of a perfect Christian society in which inappropriate behaviour would be punished.84 Augustine describes their ‘justice’ in the following way:

front of them, they died in a furious madness, they were buried putrescent and they were venerated as mystifiers.” 77 See ibid., 1.27.30 (CSEL 53.228). 78 See ibid., 1.28.32 (CSEL 53.230–31). Cf. Shaw, Sacred Violence, 633; Dale T. Irvin and Scott W. Sunquist, History of the World Christian Movement. Earliest Christianity to 1453, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001), 171. 79 Optatus, S. Optati Milevitani libri VII 3.4 (CSEL 26.82): “Nulli licuit securum esse in possessionibus suis; debitorum chirographa amiserant vires, nullus creditor illo tempore exigendi habuit libertatem … etiam itinera non poterant esse tutissima, quod domini de vehiculis suis excussi ante mancipia sua dominorum locis sedentia serviliter cucurrerunt.” Eng. trans. Mark Edwards, ed. and trans., Optatus: Against the Donatists, TTH 27 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1997), 69. 80 See Brent D. Shaw, Bringing in the Sheaves: Economy and Metaphor in the Roman World (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013), 38–92, 216–20. 81 See Bruno Pottier, “Circumcelliones, Rural Society and Communal Violence in Late Antique North Africa,” in Miles, The Donatist Schism, 153, 165. 82 See ibid., 161. 83 See Augustine, Contra epistulam Parmeniani 1.11.18 (CSEL 51.39–40). 84 See Pottier, “Circumcelliones,” 153.

2. The Escalation of Violence and Persecution

71

Whoever ignored their harsh language was forced by harsher blows to do what they ordered. The homes of the innocent who had offended them were either razed to the ground or destroyed by fires. Some heads of families, men nobly born and well educated, were carried off barely alive after their attacks and chained to a mill stone; they were forced by beating to make it turn, as if they were mere animals.85

The bands of the Circumcellions were also a kind of defence group, opposing the imperial forces that supported Caecilianists. One of their activities was to prevent the transfer of Donatist basilicas to the nominal Christians. It is known that in the mid-340s, the Comes Africae, Taurinus, using his troops, massacred many Circumcellions in a marketplace at Locus Ocatavensis.86 In the time of Julian’s reign, the Circumcellions and other Donatists, enjoying official support of the empire, become more aggressive in their relation to Caecilianists. While seizing their basilicas in 362, Donatists, with the help of Circumcellions, destroyed the altars of their enemies and even washed the Caecilianists’ dust from the walls of the churches.87 Robert P. Beaver observes that although the church of Donatus sometimes disowned the Circumcellions, they “were always its ‘advance guard,’ and its instruments of hatred and vengeance. Without the support of these wild bands Donatism would soon have been crushed by the machinery of the state.”88 Some Donatist bishops had an extremely extensive concept of the disciplinary power within their communities, which sometimes was changed into brutal violence. The Bishop Silvanus of Cirta, for example, who had obtained his office by a combination of simony and mob agitation and had a rocky relationship with his clergy, excommunicated and stoned Nundinarius, one of his deacons, who did not respect his authority.89 Similarly, Primasius of Carthage stoned some of his clerics and beat the seniores laici who had supported them.90 Augustine also mentions a Donatist bishop, Optatus of Thamugadi, who oppressed widows and orphans, cancelled marriages and forced landowners to sell their patrimony. His tyrannic deeds, according to the bishop of Hippo, were

Augustine, Epistula, 185.4.15 (CSEL 57.14): “Quicumque dura illorum verba contempserant, durioribus verberibus. Quod iubebant, facere cogebantur. Innocentium, qui eos offenderant, domus aut deponebantur ad solum aut ignibus cremabantur. Quidam patres familias honesto loco nati et generoso cultu educati vix vivi post eorum caedes ablati sunt vel iuncti ad molam et eam in gyrum ducere tamquam iumenta contemptibilia verbere adacti sunt.” Eng. trans. Agustine, “Letter 185,” To Boniface [416] in Letters 156–210 (Epistulae), The Works of Saint Augustine. A Translation for the 21st Century, ed. Boniface Ramsey, trans. Roland Teske, vol. II/3 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2004), 188. 86 See Lenski, “Imperial Legislation,” 207. 87 See Optatus, S. Optati Milevitani libri VII 6.6 (CSEL 26.153–55). 88 Robert Pierce Beaver, “The Donatist Circumcellions,” ChHis 4 (1935): 126. 89 Gesta apud Zenophilum frag. 19b (CSEL 26.188–89). 90 Augustine, Enarratio in Psalmos 36.2.20 (CCSL 38–40). 85

72

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

parallel to the actions of the Circumcellions.91 This abuse of power by their bishops could encourage some Donatists to legitimise the Circumcellions’ violent actions. Some bishops from the opposite party had a similar conception of disciplinary punishment.92 For example, Trifolius, bishop of Abora, confirmed at the Conference of Carthage in 411 that in his city those who claimed to be Donatists were stoned.93 Most probably, as already mentioned, Tyconius’ early work De bello intestino, described the nature of the internal wars that troubled the church in Africa.94 In antiquity, the title of a book was a more or less accurate summary of its content. We can, therefore, presume that he referred to similar problems of violence and attitudes not worthy of Christians. Tyconius’ disagreement with this form of Christianity could be one of the reasons for his conflict with the hierarchy of his own church that often did not fail to associate with the groups of Circumcellions. 2.2 Macarian Persecution The youngest son of Constantine, Constans (306–337), intended to follow his father’s example by promoting unity between the two groups. The situation, however, erupted again when Donatus’ efforts in 346 or 347 to reverse the position as the bishop of Carthage through the Emperor Constans failed.95 In 347, Constans sent two of his representatives, Paul and Macarius, to scrutinise the conflict between both churches. Donatus quickly noticed their preference for the Caecilianists and started to develop an idea of the separation of the church from the emperor’s influence.96 He asked provocatively “what has the emperor to do with the church” (“quid est imperatori cum ecclesia?”)97 and ordered his clergy to ignore the commission. The hostility towards the imperial notaries increased, especially when tales of what was happening in Carthage reached Numidia. They needed to call for the aid of the troops of the Comes Silvester. Donatus, bishop of Bagaï, called for the help of the Circumcellions and hid himself in a fortified storehouse-basilica.98 The situation escalated into a fight Augustine, Contra epistulam Parmeniani 3.3.18 (CSEL 51.39–40); Contra litteras Petiliani 2.23.53 (CSEL 52.51–52). 92 Cf. Pottier, “Circumcelliones,” 154–55. 93 Gesta conlationis Carthaginensis anno 411 1.133 (SC 195.750): “Trifolius episcopus plebis Aborensis … idem dixit: ‘Nomen si illic auditum fuerit Donatistarum, lapidator.’” My trans. “Trifolius, the bishop of Abora … said: ‘If anyone in my diocese is called a Donatist, he is stoned.’” 94 See Johannes van Oort, “De bello intestino: In Search of Tyconius’ and Augustine’s Use of a Term,” Augustiniana 68 (2018): 136–39. 95 See Frend, The Donatist Church, 177. 96 See ibid., 178. 97 Optatus, S. Optati Milevitani libri VII 3.3 (CSEL 26.73). 98 See Shaw, Sacred Violence, 631–74. 91

2. The Escalation of Violence and Persecution

73

with the defenders of the basilica who eventually, together with their bishop, were massacred by the troops. As a consequence, Macarius outlawed Donatism in Numidia. The result of the first severe persecutions of Donatists in 317 to 321 has a number of martyr stories in which the eschatological conflict played an important role. The stories from the experience of the second persecution in 346 to 348 act more as paradigms for standing firm in persecution, preserving purity of life99 and developing the proper self-identity. One of these stories is the Passio benedicti martyris Marculi (347), which commemorates the death of Marculus, the bishop of Thamugadi. The author of the Passio describes these events, accusing the Roman officials who published judicia (decrees) of “barbarous severity.” Many Donatist bishops were placed under arrest. The bishop Marculus from Numidia was bound to pillars, flogged like a criminal, and after four days executed and cast from the summit of the fortress at Nova Petra.100 The Donatists claimed that the rocks recognised his holiness and did not damage his martyred body.101 The Caecilianists spoke with sarcasm about this story, accusing the Donatists of being frustrated because pagan persecutions were finished and because they were obsessed with martyrdom even by committing suicide, as in the case of Marculus.102 The Passio Marculi like the Sermo de passione sanctorum Donati et Advocati, recalls apocalyptic imagery. The arrival of two representatives of Constans is described in terms similar to Rev 13:6–10, in which “two beasts” rise out of the sea and the earth on behalf of the dragon in order to force the world into union with the Antichrist. The story puts it in the following words: “Two beasts were sent to Africa, viz., the same Macarius and Paul. In short, an accursed and detestable war was declared against the Church, so that the Christian people would be forced into unity with the traitors.”103 The Emperor Constans is presented in the story as the apocalyptic dragon. Tilley notes that while “draconum signis” (the “standards of the Dragon”) is properly a description of the legionary standard, the term “would remind those who heard the story of the intimate association of the traitors and the Draco, the Devil.”104 The Passio Marculi, therefore, depicts the nominal Christians responsible for Marculus’ death as traditores in service to the Antichrist (“traditorum … Antichristo

See Tilley, The Bible in Christian North Africa, 74. See Passio benedicti martyris Marculi 4; 6; 12 (Maier 1.280–81; 282; 287–88). 101 See ibid., 13 (Maier 1.288–89). 102 See Augustine, Contra Cresconium 3.49.54 (CSEL 52.461). 103 Passio benedicti martyris Marculi 3 (Maier 1.278–79): “Et duabus bestiis ad Africam missis, eodem scilicet Macario et Paulo, execrandum prorsus ac dirum Ecclesiae certamen indictum est; ut populus Christianus ad unionem cum traditoribus faciendam.” Eng. trans. Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories, 79. 104 Ibid., 79, n. 10. 99

100

74

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

serviens”).105 The Imperial commissioner Macarius is called “the precursor to the Antichrist” (“praecursoris Antichristi”).106 Hoover notes that the author of Passio Marculi “does not view the tempora Macariana as the final persecution, despite its apparent typological similarities.”107 The writer of the story seems to suggest that the Macarian persecution is a type of the eschaton, “a world in which both traditor church and tyrannical empire foreshadow their ultimate role as Antichrist’s servitors.”108 Tyconius, in his Liber Regularum, also considers the contemporary persecution as a typological predictor of the end.109 The lesser known Donatist, Vitellius the African, who was active during the reign of Constans, in the title of his last work De eo quod odio sunt mundi Dei servi (Why the servants of God are hated by the world) written ca. 350, suggests that the real servant of God is characterised by the hatred of the world.110 In these new circumstances, the Caecilianists were called by the Donatists the Macariana ecclesia, pars Macarii or Macariani.111 The Imperial decree on unity between the two churches under Bishop Gratus led to intensified riots and chaos from 15 August 347. The Roman troops had to intervene to restore order and to facilitate again the Catholic domain. Donatus, bishop of Carthage, was sent into exile where he died ca. 355 and was proclaimed a martyr by his followers. One of the Donatist bishops from Augustine’s time testified to this persecution: “The churches of the region across the sea long remained innocent until they consented to the shedding of blood of those who suffered the persecution of Macarius.”112 On both sides there were many victims, apostasies, and mass flights.113 At that time, Tyconius was about 20 years old, and these bitter events happened in front of his attentive, intelligent, and reflexive eyes. The Donatists’ Acts characterise this period as an age of martyrdom and exile. During the Council of Carthage, convoked by Bishop Gratus in ca. 348, Paul and Macarius were called ‘servants of God’ who performed holy work

Passio benedicti martyris Marculi 1 (Maier 1.277). Ibid., 4 (Maier 1.280). 107 Hoover, The Donatist Church, 104. 108 Ibid., 105. 109 Cf. LR VI, 3.1. 110 See Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, etc., vol. 3 (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), ch. 4, 386. 111 See Frend, The Donatist Church, 185. 112 Augustine, Epistula 44.3.5 (CCSL 31.189): “Respondit tam diu transmarinarum partium ecclesias mansisse innocentes, donec consensissent in eorum sanguinem, quos Macarianam persecutionem pertulisse dicebat.” Eng. trans. Augustine, “Letter 44,” To Eleusisus, Glorius, and the two Felixes [398] in Letters 1–99 (Epistulae), The Works of Saint Augustine. A Translation for the 21st Century, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Roland Teske, vol. II/1 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2001), 175–76. 113 See Frend, The Donatist Church, 180. 105 106

2. The Escalation of Violence and Persecution

75

(ministros sancti operis famulus Dei)114 for the sake of unity between the two churches. Some Donatist bishops came back to the Caecilianist church. Gratus was, however, unable to control his bishops who spent much of their time at Constans’ court lobbying for favourable positions for their friends. The lack of discipline favoured moral corruption among bishops and attempts at usurping each other’s congregations.115 The condemnation of these attitudes is very well sensed in the Expositio Apocalypseos of Tyconius.116 Outside Carthage, for example in Numidia, Donatists effectively restored their communities that were scattered after the Macarian persecution. At Vegesela, a great basilica was built in honour of Marculus, and the spot of his martyrdom at Nova Petra was visited by Donatist pilgrims.117 From that period, we have another witness to the nascent Donatist apocalyptic trajectory: the Sermo in natali sanctorum innocentium, an anonymous sermon written probably between 347 and 362118 and delivered at the commemoration of the children killed by Herod (Matt 2:16–18).119 Comparison with Tyconius’ style, and especially with his Expositio Apocalypseos, in which one can notice parallel exegesis used in a similar ecclesial context, would support the possibility of his authorship.120 The content of the sermon suggests that it is preached to a community that experiences persecution apparently from the hands of other Christians “qui Christi nomen infamant” (“who dishonour the name of Christ”).121 The preacher demonstrates that from the time of creation to the present, the devil persecutes and fights with the innocent: The innocent have always been oppressed for the sake of truth in the present age; they have been the object of the lurking Devil’s hostility ever since the beginning of the world, when the divine command set up a painful rivalry between two opposing seeds.122

The evaluation of the historical moment presented in the sermon is radically different from the historical divisions epitomised in the Gallic writer Sulpicius Ex Concilio Carthaginensi (PL 8.774). See Frend, The Donatist Church, 183. 116 See EA I, 11126–132, 461–8; III, 353–8, 46–47; IV, 2512–14, 371–3, 405–8; V, 412–6. 117 See Frend, The Donatist Church, 184–85. 118 See Tilley, The Bible in Christian North Africa, 86. 119 Sermo in natali sanctorum innocentium 7 (PLS 1.288–95). 120 See Robinson “The Anonymous Sermo,” 99–117; Eugenio Romero-Pose, “Ticonio y el sermon in natali sanctorum innocentium,” Gregorianum 60 (1979): 513–44. Some scholars suggest the Donatis bishop Macrobius, or even the bishop Optatus of Thamugadi as author of the sermon. See respectively: Alberto Pincherle, “Un sermone donatista attribuito a s. Ottato di Milevi,” Bilychnis 22 (1923): 134–48; Francesco Scorza Barcellona, “L’interpretazione dei doni dei magi nel sermone natalizio de [Pseudo] Ottato di Milevi,” SSR 2 (1978): 129–40. 121 Sermo in natali sanctorum innocentium 11 (PLS 1.288–95). 122 Ibid., 5 (PLS 1.290): “Sempre enim innocentia pro veritate in saeculo laboravit, quia inter ipsa initia mundi inimicitias cum diabulo insidiatore suscepit quando divina sententia utraque haec semina adversum se aemulatione molesta constituit.” Eng. trans. Hoover, The Donatist Church, 109. 114 115

76

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

Severus’ (ca. 363–425) Chronica. Sulpicius Severus divides history into three stages. The first stage is an era of nine pagan persecutions when the Gospel’s proclamation struggles to survive. The second stage is the age of the Christian emperors that ends the persecutions. The third stage will be characterised by one more persecution initiated by the Antichrist just before the end of the world.123 The sermon’s witness to only one stage in all of Christian history is parallel to the position of Tyconius, who finds the description of the division in the church into good and evil throughout the whole Scriptures – from the book of Genesis to the book of Revelation. The preacher teaches that there is an eternal warfare between evil and good which was predicted by God from the very beginning in the Garden of Eden (cf. Gen 3:15). Abel, the Holy Innocents, and the preacher’s own community are presented as true Christians.124 The figure of the whole church is exemplified in the Lord and the evil of all persecutors in Herod. Their suffering unites them with the martyrs, and with them, they await the final punishment of the persecutors and the final victory of the church.125 The martyrdom accounts of the Donatists began to demonise unitas (unity), and both movements used the martyrdom stories to deprecate the opposing group.126 Anti-Caecilianists, especially in the time of persecution, gave more attention, not to the physical text of the Bible, but to the martyrs, the living embodiment and interpreters of the written word they had memorised.127 The Donatist community believed that their experience of persecutions was a sign of their being the true church.128 This conviction, as we shall see, was later Sulpicius Severus, Chronica 2.33 (CSEL 1.87): “Exinde tranquillis rebus pace perfruimur: Neque ulterius persecutionem fore credimus, nisi eam, quam sub fine iam saeculi Antichristus exercebit.” Engl. trans. Hoover, The Donatist Church, 109: “From then on we have enjoyed peace and calm. Nor do I believe that there will be any other persecution save one: that which Antichrist will initiate just before the end of the world.” 124 See Sermo in natali sanctorum innocentium 5 (PLS 1.288–95). 125 See ibid., 6 (PLS 1.291). 126 See Candida Moss, “Martyr Veneration in Late Antique North Africa,” in Miles, The Donatist Schism, 61. 127 See Tilley, The Bible in Christian North Africa, 10. 128 Augustine, Epistula 185.2.10 (CSEL 57.9): “Si autem putant, quod nemo possit iuste aliquem persequi, sicut in conlatione dixerunt illam esse veram ecclesiam, quae persecutionem patitur, non quae facit, omitto dicere, quod superius commemoravi, quia, si ita est, ut dicunt, Caecilianus ad veram ecclesiam pertinebat, quando eum maiores illorum usque ad imperatoris iudicium accusando persequebantur. Nos enim dicimus ideo illum ad veram ecclesiam pertinuisse, non quia persecutionem patiebatur, sed quia propter iustitiam patiebatur; illos autem ideo fuisse abalienatos ab ecclesia, non quia persequebantur, sed quia iniuste persequebantur.” Eng. trans. Aurelius Augustine, Writings in Connection with the Donatist Controversy, trans. J.R. King (Frankfurt am Main: Outlook Verlag, 2019), 394: “But if they think that no one can be justified in using violence, – as they said in the course of the conference that the true Church must necessarily be the one which suffers persecution, not the one inflicting it, – in that case I no longer urge what I observed above; because, if the matter is as they maintain that it is, then Caecilianus must have belonged to the true Church, seeing 123

2. The Escalation of Violence and Persecution

77

confirmed by their identification with a biblical minority, that is, building their identity on the remnant motif. Tyconius completely opposes this kind of ecclesiology. The long period of persecution and the Caecilianists’ domination ended in the autumn of 361 when Julian became the new emperor. His short reign, however, gives new reasons to believe that evil forces battled strongly against the reconciliation and unity between Donatists and Caecilianists. 2.3 The Reign of Julian Flavius Claudius Iulianus, the nephew of Constantine the Great, better known as Julian the Apostate, begun his sovereignty in 361 and it lasted for only about twenty months. For historians, Julian is a polarising figure. Some scholars consider him an enlightened and tolerant monarch who held a critical attitude towards the alliance between the emperor and the church that was initiated by his uncle. They believe he wanted to reform the empire and society according to Greek culture in its true form. Others see in him a conservative reformer who attempted to preserve threatened cultural values and who tried to revive a religion that was already dying. Still for others, Julian was a usurper and a religious fanatic who wanted to destroy Christianity.129 Scholars continue to search for the motives that provoked in him a distaste for Christianity. It could be, perhaps, his philosophical reflection, his religious experience, or his love for the cult of the ancient gods.130 In 362 the Emperor Julian allowed the Donatist bishops, who had been exiled in 347, to return home and ordered the restitution of their seized properties. His favouring of the Donatist church was only apparent, but it was actually a part of his larger plan to sow discord among two Christian parties and to bring them to quarrelling, mutual hatred and, consequently, to self-destruction.131 that their fathers persecuted him, by pressing his accusation even to the tribunal of the emperor himself. For we maintain that he belonged to the true Church, not merely because he suffered persecution, but because he suffered it for righteousness’s sake; but that they were alienated from the Church, not merely because they persecuted, but because they did so in unrighteousness.” 129 See a noteworthy study on Julian’s life in Stefan Rebenich and Hans-Ulrich Wiemer, eds., A Companion to Julian Apostate (Leiden: Brill, 2020). The authors of the book synthetise research on Julian that was done by international scholars over the past decades and develop new perspectives. For a discussion on Julians’ problematic relationship with Christians see: Hans C. Teitler, The Last Pagan Emperor: Julian the Apostate and the War against Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017); Susanna Elm, Sons of Hellenism, Fathers of the Church: Emperor Julian, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Vision of Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012); Jean Bouffartigue, “L’empereur Julien était-il intolerant?” REA 53 (2007): 1–14; Klaus Rosen, Julian: Kaiser, Gott und Christenhasser (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2006). 130 See Rebenich and Wiemer, A Companion to Julian Apostate, 207–44. 131 See Lenski, “Imperial Legislation,” 178–79.

78

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

Ammianus Marcellinus (ca. 325–ca. 395), a Roman soldier and historian, in his work Res Gestae, makes Julian the central figure in Books 15–25 and describes his policy towards Christians: And in order to add to the effectiveness of these ordinances, he called together the bishops of the Christians, who were of conflicting opinions, and the people, who were also at variance, and politely advised them to lay aside their differences, and each fearlessly and without opposition to observe his own beliefs. On this he took a firm stand, to the end that, as this freedom increased their dissension, he might afterwards have no fear of a united populace, knowing as he did from experience that no wild beasts are such enemies to mankind as are most of the Christians in their deadly hatred of one another.132

Julian’s plan began to work soon after the return of the Donatist bishops to Africa. The bishop Optatus of Milevis, the apologist of Caecilian, commented on the situation in the following words: You returned, in your madness, to Africa almost at the moment when the devil was loosed from his dungeons. Still you do not blush – you who, at the same time as the Enemy, have reasons for rejoicing, which you share with him. You came raging; you came full of wrath, rending the members of the Church; subtle in your deceits; savage in your slaughters, provoking the children of Peace to war.133

The policy of Julian gave rise to a new confusion and communal fury among Christians. The sees of many Caecilianist bishops were taken over by Donatists, often with the help of the violent Circumcellions.134 It was a matter of both revenge on nominal Christians and the conviction of Donatist religious righteousness. Frend summarises these events in the following words: Bishops, priests, and women in vows (sanctimoniales) were rudely deposed. Where they were not killed outright, they were ordered ‘to become Christians,’ they were stripped of their mitres and veils, their heads shaven, covered with ashes (i.e. subjected to ritual penance), and either invested anew by the victorious Donatists or cast out among the crowd of laymen and penitents. The altars at which they had worshipped only a short time before were broken up and burnt, the Communion wine thrown to the dogs or heated into a powerful stimulant and drunk. The Catholic liturgical vessels were thrown out of windows to be smashed, and their fragments sold off at the fairs for what they would fetch. Those who hesitated to participate 132 Ammianus Marcellinus, Res gestae a fine Cornelii Taciti 22.5, 3–4: “Utque dispositorum roboratet effectum, dissidentes Christianorum antistites cum plebe discissa in palatium intromissos, monebat civilius, ut discordiis consopitis, quisque nullo vetante, religioni suae serviret intrepidus. Quod agebat ideo obstinate, ut dissensiones augente licentia, non timeret unanimantem postea plebem, nullas infestas hominibus bestias, ut sunt sibi ferales plerique Christianorum expertus.” Eng. trans. Ammianus Marcellinus, History, trans. John C. Rolfe, vol. 2 (London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), 203. 133 Optatus, S. Optati Milevitani libri VII 2.17 (CSEL 26.51): “Isdem paene momentis vester furor in Africam revertitur, quibus diabolus de suis carceribus relaxatur. Et non erubescitis, qui uno tempore cum inimico communia gaudia possidetis! Venistis rabidi, venistis irati membra laniantes ecclesiae, subtiles in seductionibus, in caedibus inmanes, filios pacis ad bella provocantes.” Eng. trans. Vassall-Phillips, The Work of St. Optatus, 1730. 134 See Optatus, S. Optati Milevitani libri VII 2.17–19 (CSEL 26.51–55). See also De l’avénement de Julien à la mort de Théodose Ier (361–395) (Maier 2.41–43).

3. The Consolidation of the Separation Between Two Churches

79

were taunted with adhering to the ‘Macarians’ and accused of ‘idolatry.’ The Donatist leaders saw in such events a just retribution and a necessary purge.135

In the Donatists’ eyes, Caecilianists, labelled as Macarians, were impure, and because of that, all the sacred objects which they touched, basilicas, churches and altars, were defiled and had to be either cleansed or destroyed.136 The religious fanaticism of the Circumcellions inspired the ordinary Donatists to acts of vengeance, often under their bishops’ leadership. In 362, for example, the bishops of Zabi and Flumen Piscensis on the Mauretanian High Plains led an armed band of Donatists to attack the opposing Christian party in Lemellefense. They plundered their church and killed two deacons.137 Another act of terror, supported not only by the Donatist bishops, but also by the Imperial officials, took place in the city of Tipasa. The Praeses of Mauretania Caesariensis, Athenius, backed the Donatists’ entry into the town. The Caecilianists, being humiliated, had to leave the city, their virgins under vows were violated, the Eucharist desecrated, and a Donatist community was erected in their place.138 Also, near Constantine, the bishop of Tiddis was solemnly deposed from his office and sent away.139 Donatists recovered their properties either by acts of violence or by acts of law that worked in their favour. The buildings previously used by Caecilianists were purified with salt and water, and the altars and walls of churches were painted with a thick coating of adhesive whitewash.140 Macarians could not be buried in a cemetery held by the Donatists, they could not marry a Donatist partner, and even daily greetings were not allowed any more. There was a kind of fear of the spiritual contagion of ‘Macarian’ impurity.141 The renewal of the religious violence and mutual hatred between Donatists and Caecilianists was the great success of Julian’s somewhat less than three-year reign. He managed to intensify the division and separateness of both parties, which would be impossible to cure.

3. The Consolidation of the Separation Between Two Churches There were several historical, contextual, and even geographical factors that pushed Donatists towards their well-defined pro-sectarian attitude. The Christian hostility towards the pagan Roman society was nourished by the belief in the approaching end of the world and the thousand-year reign of Christ among his elect. The delay of the parousia and the beginnings of the Christian impeFrend, The Donatist Church, 189. See Optatus, S. Optati Milevitani libri VII 6.3 (CSEL 26.146–49). 137 See Frend, The Donatist Church, 188–90. 138 See Optatus, S. Optati Milevitani libri VII 2.18 (CSEL 26.53); 6.4 (CSEL 26.149–51). 139 See ibid., 2.19 (CSEL 26.53–55). 140 See ibid., 6.5 (CSEL 26.152–53). 141 See ibid., 4.5; 6.7 (CSEL 26.108; 155). 135 136

80

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

rium gave rise to the existential crisis. The conversion of Constantine and his official patronage over Christianity were seen by many Christians, among them Tyconius, as “a diabolic innovation, a falling away from Christ, a becoming worldly of the Church.”142 Christians were still in shock after the last severe Diocletian Persecution, and now the Roman emperor entered the church. Some considered it as the fulfilment of the Matthean prophecy (cf. Matt 24:14). If the Gospel reached the centre of the known world, therefore, it was an apocalyptic sign of the imminent end of times. This tradition was inherited from the second and third centuries when the western Christians used to believe that the empire played the role of the Katechon described in 2 Thess 2:6a.7b, that “restrains” the incursion of the Antichrist and now it is about to be removed.143 The apocalyptic fever in the Latin Christian world had been intensified by another factor, namely, the belief in the concept of the ‘world week,’ developed (among others) by the North African Latin apologist Lactantius.144 This theory stated that the world, which was created in six days, shall also exist for six millennia and the seventh day, the day of rest, signifies the apocalypse.145 Many Christians believed that this time was approaching. Additionally, the continual conflicts and antagonism between Donatists and Caecilianists resulted in a deep economic and social dissatisfaction within the Christian Empire. The Donatists began to nurture clear separatism from the ‘majority church’ and from the empire, at the same time emphasising the eschatological aspects of the surrounding world.146 It seems that Donatists felt better in the age of martyrs than in tempora Christiana. Two different views of Christianity divided the North African Christians – liberal, open for compromises with the Roman Empire, and rigorist, preferring complete separation from the world. In this section, we shall focus on two important bishops, Parmenian and Optatus whom we have already mentioned. In the late fourth century, both of them played a significant role in establishing criteria for separation between Donatists and Caecilianists. The Donatist community, looking for a proper identity in their new circumstances, defined itself as the collecta, a chosen eschatological remnant that had to exist in the midst of the apostates who compromised with the Roman Empire. The Donatists’ geographical centre in 142 Robert A. Markus, Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St. Augustine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 115–16; See Tyconius, rule VI. 143 See, for example, Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus haereses 5.26 (SC 153.326.18–47); 5.30 (SC 153.380.70–382.74); Tertullian, Apologeticum 32.1 (CCSL 1.142–43); Ad Scapulam 2 (CCSL 2.1127–32); De resurrectione mortuorum 24 (CCSL 2.919–10.12). 144 See Lactantius, Divinae institutiones 7.25 (CSEL 19.664). 145 See Jean Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, trans. John Baker (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 390–402 (orig. pub. Theologie du judeo-Christianisme [Paris: Desclée, 1958]); Martin Wallraff, Umberto Roberto, and Karl Pinggéra, eds., trans. William Adler, Julius Africanus: Chronographiae. The Extant Fragments (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 274; Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum 3.28 (ANF 2.120). 146 See Hoover, The Donatist Church, 4.

3. The Consolidation of the Separation Between Two Churches

81

Southern Numidia will also be briefly discussed as a relevant factor of their self-definition. This background is believed to play an important role in the development of Tyconius’ eschatology which he encapsulated especially in the motif of discessio from 2 Thess 2:3b. 3.1 Parmenian and Optatus of Milevis In 362, when Parmenian received the bishopric of Carthage after Donatus’ death, Tyconius was about 32 years old. This was at a time when the Donatists prospered under Julian, but the situation changed again under the reign of Valentinian I (364–375) and Valens (364–378) who ended the Imperial favour of the Donatists. The new Comes Africae, Romanus, attempted once more to restore Catholicism with the help of his troops. Most likely, Tyconius refers directly to this persecution in the sixth rule of the Liber Regularum147 and in his Expositio Apocalypseos, while commenting on Rev 3:10; 6:8; 9:5.10.14; 10:11; 14:6–7148 as a Revelation of the Antichrist. These new circumstances brought about a renewal of the activity of the Circumcellions, whose violence was not accepted by all Donatists. Some of them, under the leadership of Rogatus, bishop of Cartenna, broke away from the main body of Donatism and established their own community called Rogatists.149 That was the first schism within a schism. History shows that the phenomenon of division in the church is, on the one hand, connected with a departure from the spirit of love and forgiveness, and, on the other hand, an openness to the spirit of hatred and stubbornness. Parmenian, the bishop of Carthage, as an educated, influential, and honourable man, was determined to argue not violently, but methodologically with the African followers of Caecilian. His long episcopate (363–391) brought the Donatist theological self-understanding to another level.150 In his important work of five volumes, Adversus Ecclesiam Traditorum, which has not survived to our times, but can be partially reconstructed from the writings of Optatus of Milevis and Augustine of Hippo, Parmenian presented his ecclesiology and his vision of the relationship with the surrounding world. Optatus’ and Augustine’s exposition of events obviously had the Catholic perspective and was apologetic, and even hostile, and may not always correspond to the real facts. In his work, Parmenian probably dealt with the problem of baptism, the unity of the church, the crime of traditio, and the iniquity of the Macarian persecution.151 However, it appears clear that he made a shift in the definition of the true church. The Donatist church 147 LR VI, 3.18–10: “Quod autem Danihel dixit in Africa geritur, neque in eodem tempore finis.” (“But what Daniel said is going on now in Africa, and the end is not at this time”). 148 See EA I, 4110–18; II, 3539–50; III, 357–8, 3810–14, 6012–17; V, 29–12. 149 See Augustine, Epistula 93.11 (CSEL 34:2.455–56). 150 See Frend, The Donatist Church, 193–94. 151 See ibid., 194.

82

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

could no longer claim to be the true church just by being in opposition to the traditores. He decided to establish clear boundaries between the two communities and to define their own concept of the church. He promoted an uncompromising separation of the Donatist communities from the rest of the false Christians, who were spiritually polluted and in the service of evil.152 Parmenian argued that the African nominal Christians betrayed the Word of God and used armed forces to fight against other Christians, what automatically excommunicated them from the true church. The Donatists professed that the Caecilianists were not able to interpret the Scripture, which they gave away to be burned during the Diocletian persecution, because their minds were under diabolic control and they did not adhere to truth.153 At the same time, Parmenian justified the acts of Donatist violence when their clergy were returning from exile after the Macarian persecution. This violence in the name of the church against ‘persecutors’ was, in his view, legitimate.154 He demanded not only the separation of the Donatist church from the ‘majority church,’ but also a complete separation from the empire. Parmenian believed that God granted particular endowments or dotes to his church, and therefore, only Donatists could perform a valid baptism. He identified six such dotes: the cathedra (the authority of the church), the angel (may be a rightly consecrated bishop), the Spirit, the fountain (of true baptism), the seal of the fountain and the umbilicus (a properly consecrated altar).155 In turn, Optatus maintained that the true church should be distinguished by five dotes: the chair of Peter, the occupant of this chair, the baptismal font, the Spirit and the priesthood.156 This identity classification established by both bishops can be summarised under two headings: authority and sacraments, the constitutive elements of the Christian church. The importance of the Holy Spirit, mentioned by both Parmenian and Optatus, is supposed to unite what is human with what is divine. The problem is that the conflict allowed the reign of the spirit of division and rivalry and the promotion of two different truths. In his seven books On the Schism of the Donatists, Optatus rebuked the Donatists for their attitude that had disturbed the peace of the church. He considered them the false church because their way of life was far away from the concept of the pure and spotless Bride of Christ which they claimed to be. According to Optatus, the Donatists pretended to the name of ‘church,’ but their bishops lacked apostolic succession, rejected the union with the bishop of Rome and did not understand catholicity.157 Caecilian, argued Optatus, was See Bright, “The Church and the ‘Mystery of Iniquity’,” 42. See Tilley, The Bible in Christian North Africa, 25–26. 154 See Frend, The Donatist Church, 195–96. 155 Optatus, S. Optati Milevitani libri VII 2.8 (CSEL 26.44). See also Thomislaus Šagi-Bunić, “Controversaria de baptismate inter Parmenianum et S. Optatum Milevitanum,” Laurentianum 3 (1962): 167–209. 156 Optatus, S. Optati Milevitani libri VII 2.2; 2.6–9 (CSEL 26.36; 42–45). 157 See ibid., 1.11–12 (CSEL 26.13–15). 152 153

3. The Consolidation of the Separation Between Two Churches

83

acknowledged as bishop of Carthage in every province of the empire, whereas Donatus was accepted only by half of the African population.158 Optatus challenged Parmenian’s ecclesiology, especially his inconsistency regarding rules on re-baptism. The Donatists emphasised the contrast between the true baptismal water of their church and the false water of the Caecilianists.159 Anyone joining the Donatist church had to receive the spiritual bath as for the first time160 from the minister of the true church.161 The Donatists imposed a restriction that denied the validity of the rite if it was administered by a cleric without the true succession. The nominal Christians’ baptism, performed by traditores, did not have a valid effect because their clerics were abandoned by the Spirit and they remained in their sin of apostasy. Other schismatics like the Rogatists or Maximianists, who previously were baptised as members of the true Donatist church, did not have to be baptised again in the case of their return, but Caecilianists who wanted to join their community were required to do so.162 Similar practices were applied to their understanding of the sacrament of priesthood. For example, the Donatists used to scrape altars and the heads of rival clerics before reanointing them as the ministers of their church, and, throw out the window a vial of chrism consecrated by their bishops.163 For both groups the altar was the centrepiece of worship, and the destruction of the Caecilianists’ altars by the Donatists was considered by Optatus as the worst of their atrocities.164 The altar, the symbol of union, became the sign of division. The Eucharistic body of Christ was torn into pieces by Christians themselves. Caecilianists pointed out that not all of the Donatist clerics were sinless,165 and it seems that the Donatists were able to acknowledge this fact. What they insisted on was that the rule established at the Council of Cirta in 305 said that it was not the personal sin of a minister that mattered, but his membership in the holiness of the true church. Each of these two influential leaders considered his own church as singular and pure, and, at the same time, condemned his opponents as a collection of sinners.166 This dichotomous treatment of Christianity led Tyconius to an opSee ibid., 2.3 (CSEL 26.42–43). See ibid., 5.1 (CSEL 26.118–21). 160 See ibid., 5.4 (CSEL 26.126–29). 161 See Sententiae episcoporum de haereticis baptizandis 87 1 (CSEL 3E.436–37). 162 See Augustine, Epistula 93.13.51 (CSEL 34:2.494–95). See also Albert C. De Veer, “L’exploitation du schisme maximianiste par Saint Augustin dans la lutte contre le Donatisme,” RechAug 3 (1965): 219–37. 163 See Optatus, S. Optati Milevitani libri VII 2.19; 2.23; 6.1 (CSEL 26.54; 60; 145); Tilley, The Bible in Christian North Africa, 110; Cf. Bright, “The Church and the ‘Mystery of Iniquity’,” 42. 164 See Mark Edwards, “The Donatist Schism and Theology,” in Miles, The Donatist Schism, 109. 165 See Augustine, Contra epistulam Parmenian 2.8.21; 2.11.23 (CSEL 51.69; 73). 166 See Tilley, The Bible in Christian North Africa, 112. 158 159

84

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

posite, bipartite vision of the church which temporarily has to be inclusive, but prepared for the eschatological partition. 3.2 The Donatist Collecta Both Donatists and Caecilianists were people of the Bible, but they often interpreted it differently. The surviving Donatist writings demonstrate the changing interpretative attitude of the Donatist leaders or writers, who used the Scriptures as means of making sense of their world. As Tilley notes, the word of God served as a weapon to attack or disapprove enemies and to approve actions and beliefs of the proper community. The subjective meaning of Scripture predominated over its objective truth. The use of Scripture depended, therefore, on the community’s needs and changing strategies for world-construction.167 At the time of martyrdom, the Donatists looked to Scripture for inspirational figures like the Maccabees, Daniel or Christ himself, who would strengthen their quest for martyrdom or self-sacrifice. The new circumstances compelled them to change their theological focal point and forced them to look for the justification of their separatist attitude.168 They supported their quest for self-definition as the pure church by a typological reading of some biblical verses. For example, interpreting the Song of Songs, the Donatists considered themselves to be those who save the chastity of Christ’s one dove (cf. Song 6:8), that is, the church. They identified themselves with the image of the sealed fountain and the security of the walled garden (cf. Song 4:12–13), which the Roman bishop was threatening to defile by the admission of those baptised in unsanctified waters.169 The Donatists compared Caecilianist baptisteries to the dehydrated cisterns of Jeremiah (cf. Jer 2:13) and referred to them with David’s prayer: “let not the oil of the sinner anoint my head” (Ps 140:5).170 The other side, in the person of Optatus, responded with the same typological weapons, proving that the Donatist interpretation of the Psalmist’s malediction is wrong. Optatus claimed that the Psalmist foretold the Donatists’ violence against the true church and looked for other biblical images that would describe his opponents. He suggested that the denunciation of the prophet Ezekiel on those who make veils to deceive every class of people and Christ’s words: “Do not cast pearls before swine” refer to Donatists. He considered the proud Donatist bishop of Carthage to be the subject of Ezekiel’s prophecy of woe on the prince of Tyre.171 Interestingly, the prophecy of Ezekiel was also used abundantly by Tyconius in his seventh rule of the Liber Regularum where he pointed out that its See ibid., 6–8. See Maureen A. Tilley, “Sustaining Donatist Self-Identity: From the Church of the Martyrs to the Collecta of the Desert,” JECS 5 (1997): 21–35. 169 See Edwards, “The Donatist Schism,” 109. 170 See Optatus, S. Optati Milevitani libri VII 4.7; 4.9 (CSEL 26.112–14; 114–16). 171 See ibid., 3.3 (CSEL 26.75–76). 167 168

3. The Consolidation of the Separation Between Two Churches

85

true subject is the devil, whose fall into depravity from a state of purity should be a lesson to his fellow Donatists who consider themselves pure. By the late fourth century, despite multiple attempts to receive official recognition, it became clear that the Donatist movement found itself rejected by the wider church in the western regions of Italy, Gaul, and Spain.172 This rejection by the ‘majority church’ was, however, transformed by Donatists into a virtue, namely to eschatological self-perception as a chosen remnant. The suitable typological image, as we have mentioned earlier, was found in the collecta of the faithful Jews liberated from the slavery of Egypt who had to face many temptations in the desert during their long journey towards the promised land. Similarly, the Donatists saw themselves liberated from the persecution of the pagan government, but also tempted by the Roman Empire to assimilate with the ‘majority church’.173 The metaphor indicated that they considered themselves no more as people at war with an oppressor but as the chosen remnant – the people of God who innocently suffer while travelling through a desert, that is, through the land of apostates, and are tempted to idolatry. The post-Macarian Donatists interpreted the prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2 about mass apostasy as happening now in the church, before the rise of the Antichrist and the outbreak of the final persecution. They believed that the ‘majority church’ was wrong, fallen away from the Truth, and only the Donatist North African church remained faithful.174 This eschatological collecta awaited not human or political justice, but the justice of the coming Lord. They turned from an imminent eschaton to a continual struggle. The Christians associated with the empire were labelled as carnifex and tyrannus, comparable to persecutors of the faithful Maccabees (cf. 2 Macc 7:29). They were the embodiment of Caiaphas (cf. Matt 26:57) who unjustly judged the collecta, the true body of Christ.175 The Donatists, therefore, divided human history into two periods: the present Time of Sorrows and the future Age of Glory.176 In this new stage of Donatism, separatism became the indicator of the true church. The question was no longer when and how to participate in martyrdom, but how to preserve a pure and spotless church in the midst of apostate Christians. Anyone who disagreed with the Donatist interpretation of the Bible was considered to be blinded by the depravity of sin. The focus of attention was on defending the identity of true Christians from sinful nominal Christians, which in practice was understood as a separation from sinners.177 In the Caecilianist-Donatist controversy, the idea of sin as a See Hoover, The Donatist Church, 117, 119. See Tilley, The Bible in Christian North Africa, 53–57. 174 See Hoover, The Donatist Church, 120. 175 See Passio Marculi (PL 8.761A and B, 762B, 763D, 764A, 765A); Passio Maximiani (PL 8.769A); Tilley, The Bible in Christian North Africa, 76. 176 See Hoover, The Donatist Church, 138. 177 See Tilley, The Bible in Christian North Africa, 90, 92. 172 173

86

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

contagion played a prominent role. The Donatists based their beliefs on biblical verses that would confirm their separatist spirit. They attempted to follow the example of Cyprian who used to apply biblical texts in his battles within the community. The difference lay in the fact that Cyprian strove for the restoration of unity, but the Donatists, in contrast, strove for the enforcement of separatism,178 which became for them a conditio sine qua non of their survival. The notion of ‘separation’ from the unholy, promoted already in the third century by Tertullian and Novatian, found its fertile ground among the Donatists.179 The Donatist code of community behaviour can surely be identified as prosectarian, and characterised as conservative, passive, aggressive and highly ritualised.180 3.3 The Notion of the South Another important factor that supports the separatist attitude of the Donatists is geographical. Both Caecilianists and Donatists tried to mark their spatial realm. Donatism spread quite quickly, as Jerome says, in “nearly all Africa,”181 but Frend notices that the region of Numidia played a special role in the controversy. The most fanatical zeal for Christianity was concentrated in this area whose Southern part became the centre of Donatism.182 This geographical and social detail shall help us to better understand the Tyconian eschatology described especially in the seventh book of the Liber Regularum. From Augustine’s Epistula ad catholicos, we learn how the Donatists conflated their geographical location with the special status that the term ‘South’ often carries in the Old Testament. In the Song of Songs 1:7, they found exemplary support for their conviction: “It’s written, they claim, in the Song of Songs that the bride, that is, the church, says to the groom: ‘Tell me, you whom my soul loves, where you pasture your flock, where you lie down.’ The answer is: ‘in the South.’”183 Based on such passages, the Donatists were growing in their belief of being elected as the beloved of the Lord.184 In the Latin text, the

See ibid., 37, 40–41. See Bright, “The Church and the ‘Mystery of Iniquity’,” 40. 180 See Richard Miles, “Textual Communities and the Donatist Controversy,” in Miles, The Donatist Schism, 268. 181 Jerome, De viris illustribus, 93 (PL 23.734). 182 See Frend, The Donatist Church, 23–24. 183 Augustine, Epistula ad catholicos de secta Donatistarum 16.40 (OSA 28.618): “Scriptum est inquiunt in Canticis canticorum sponsa, id est Ecclesia, dicente ad sponsum: Annuntia mihi, quem dilexit anima mea, ubi pascis, ubi cubas in meridie.” See also Epistula 93.24; 93.25 (CSEL 34:2.469; 470). 184 See Tilley, The Bible in Christian North Africa, 148–49. 178 179

3. The Consolidation of the Separation Between Two Churches

87

word for ‘noon’ is in meridie and signifies the moment of the day when the sun is most Southward. In daily usage it became a synonym for the South.185 The Donatists believed that their habitation in the South of Rome made them God’s chosen flock.186 They were convinced that Numidia, the stronghold of the Donatist church, was a land appointed by the Lord to be his Bride.187 The inhabitants of Southern Numidia, Mauretania Sitifensis, and part of Byzacena, remained far away from the Roman civilisation that was widespread in the Proconsular Province and parts of northern Numidia. The people in the Southern parts were tied to their own customs of the past, felt proud of their independence, and were resisting Roman influence, in contrast to the Northern areas with Italian style cities.188 The Caecilianists gathered mainly in Carthage and its immediate neighbourhood, and major towns like Thevestem Mascula, Macomades or Thamugadi.189 We can, therefore, generally speak about the Numidian and Carthaginian clergy, and two types of societies gathered around these centres. In one of his Sermons, Augustine pointed out that the Donatists wrongly broadened their understanding of the South by equating their being Southern with being African. In reading Habakkuk 3:3, the Donatists exchanged the word “South” for “Afric,” which is an archaic term for the “South” – “‘There is also,’ they say, ‘another testimony’ … God will come from the Afric, and now of course where the Afric is, there is Africa.” According to the bishop of Hippo, claiming that “the noonday or South means Africa” is simply a misreading of the passage.190 Frend’s argument that the Donatists’ think of the ‘South’ as the region of Numidia can be one interpretation that also seems to be confirmed by Tyconius’ testimony. It is, however, difficult to strictly delimit the distribution of Donatists to the inland (Southern) regions and Caecilianists to the coastal (northern) regions. The ‘South’ should rather be understood in a symbolic sense. The second possibility, supported by Augustine, would consider the ‘South’s’ favoured status in the divine plan, if the anti-Donatists were limited not only to the traditores of Northern Africa, but also the traditor ‘northern’ provinces of Spain, Gaul, and Italy.191

See David E. Wilhite, Ancient African Christianity: An Introduction to a Unique Context and Tradition (London: Routledge, 2017), 220. 186 Cf. Anthony Dupont and Matteo Dalvit, “From a Martyrological ‘Tabernacula Pastorum’ Towards a Geographical ‘In Meridie’: Augustine’s Representation and Refutation of the Donatist Exegesis of Sg. 1,6–7,” RHE 109 (2014): 5–34 (see esp. p. 24). 187 See Frend, The Donatist Church, 25. 188 See ibid., 30–31. 189 See ibid., 52. 190 Augustine, Sermo 46 15.38; 16.40 (PL 38.293–294.) 191 See Hoover, The Donatist Church, 159. 185

88

Chapter II: Historical Context of Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12

All the issues discussed in this section clearly show us that the Donatist and Caecilianist ways diverged even more in Tyconius’ time. The separatist attitude became a weapon for preserving a proper ecclesial identity for each group. Summary In the first few centuries of Christianity, North Africa witnessed several different schisms, such as the Marcionites, Valentinians, Arians, Pelagians and Manichees. Some of them quickly flourished and vanished into obscurity, while others remained for a longer period of time. The Donatism phenomenon lasted for almost three centuries (ca. 312–596). In the time of Aurelius – the Catholic bishop of Carthage, and Augustine, the young bishop of Hippo – the fight between the two parties escalated on an intellectual and strategic level.192 Both bishops started to characterise the Donatists not only as schismatics but as heretics, using imperial anti-heretical laws against them and presenting them as enemies of the Roman Empire.193 The law against heretics established by Theodosius in 392 was applied to Donatists, who were considered a threat to the already weakened and divided Western Empire.194 The Emperor Honorius declared Donatism a heresy in 405, and a criminal offence in 412, ordering all Donatist properties to be handed over to the officially recognised Catholic church.195 In the Byzantine period, Donatism was able to be revived only in certain areas of North Africa, but after the Arab-Muslim conquest in the late seventh century, it disappeared along with all other African Christian presence.196 The fourth-century history of the Donatist-Caecilianist controversy before and during the life of Tyconius was the focus of our study in this chapter. As we have seen in the above analysis, the schism was born out of the conflict over the relationship to the persecuting Roman Empire. It was a dispute over the proper way to be a Christian in a changing world: first the Roman pagan world and then the Roman Christian world. Various Donatist efforts to demonise the world and to present those who compromise with it as deserted by the Holy Spirit led to deeper wounds in the “body of Christ.” According to this way of thinking, separation from the world guaranteed the assistance of the Holy Spirit. The schism gradually shifted from disciplinary to theological issues and to consolidated separatism. The Donatists forgot that a believer is a historical

192 See Augustine, Œuvres de Saint Augustin 29. Quatrieme Serie. Traités Anti-Donatistes, trans. De G. Finaert, BA 2 (Paris: Desclée, 1964). 193 See Shaw, Sacred Violence, 141. 194 See Maier 2.134–45; Roger C. Blockley, “The Dynasty of Theodosius,” in The Cambridge Ancient History: The Late Empire, AD 337–425, eds. A. Cameron and P. Garnsey, vol. 13 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 111–13. 195 See Maier 2.171–73; 175–79. See also Shaw, Sacred Violence, 273; 555–56; Frend, The Donatist Church, 288–89. 196 See Frend, The Donatist Church, 310–12; Maier 2.351–53.

3. The Consolidation of the Separation Between Two Churches

89

being, who has to confront every sort of reality and find ways to practise his faith in various circumstances of life. We have attempted to consider the historical context and circumstances that presumably led Tyconius to focus on the motifs of 2 Thessalonians 2. It is not an easy task and certainly cannot be done with total objectivity since the few sources that we have in our hands today were made from the subjective perspective of their authors, who were often guided by their own reasoning and the particular aims they wanted to achieve. What we have, however, obtained will serve us as the background for understanding the literary world constructed by Tyconius that we shall see in the next chapter. We have learned that Tyconius belonged to his historical time and was very mindful of where he came from and who he was. He was aware of the past and present history of his region and his people. Even more, his historical horizon was shaped by the historical process that took place around him. More or less consciously, he brought his own experience to his reading of 2 Thessalonians 2 and established an existential dialogue with the text, which produced some answers that he proposed to others. The motifs of 2 Thessalonians 2, especially from verses 3 and 7, play a particular role in his interpretation of his reality, and they might be better understood if seen precisely in light of the historical context of fourth-century Northern Africa.

Chapter III

Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World by Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12 In this chapter, we will focus on the literary level of the reception, namely on the performative assimilation of 2 Thess 2:3–12 by Tyconius, in both of his works: the Liber Regularum and the Expositio Apocalypseos. This passage attracted Tyconius’ attention in a particular way, because he found in it a resonance of his own historical context. Although he does not use all the verses of the pericope, it seems that he considers it a thematic unit. It is worth mentioning that in none of his works does he cite or refer to chapters or passages of 2 Thessalonians other than chapter 2, verses 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and partially v. 10. Interestingly, Tyconius leaves aside v. 11. Throughout our analysis we shall attempt to understand how far the text of 2 Thessalonians 2, which was written in response to a concrete situation of the community in crisis,1 was relevant in the fourth century crisis of the North African church. What does Tyconius really do with this text, and how are we to understand it in the new context? How does he use 2 Thessalonians 2 for communication with his intended readers? Does Tyconius want his readers to recognise that he refers to 2 Thessalonians 2 as he interprets the book of Revelation and other passages of Scripture? Like many other ancient Christian authors, Tyconius feels free to use and elaborate on the biblical text in his own way, even to the point of losing its original form. He does not make a systematic exegesis of 2 Thessalonians 2 but, as we have mentioned above, is quite selective and concentrates on particular verses which serve to construct his literary world. Sometimes he quotes, but usually he alludes to or echoes the passage by selecting specific expressions or single words, which eventually become the controlling themes for his entire exegesis and theology.2 Some quotations or allusions to 2 Thess 2:3–12 have 1 We cannot say with certainty if the letter was composed in Thessalonica or even for the Thessalonian community. It could have originated anywhere in the area of Macedonia, in Philippi or Ephesus. See Tobias Nicklas, Der zweite Thessalonicherbrief, KEK 10:2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019), 53, 62–63. 2 Many biblical scholars attempt to establish the meaning of quotation, allusion and echo. They proposed various criteria for these categories, but in our case, these criteria must not be strictly used. For my analyses, I understand these categories in the following way: a) a quotation is a direct citation from 2 Thess 2:3–12 that is clearly recognisable by its set of words which have verbatim or near verbatim agreement with the text. Some quotations are signalled

92

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

a minor importance to Tyconius and are used in the service of the carefully selected motifs drawn from vv. 3 and 7: homo peccati (v. 3c), mysterium facinoris (v. 7a), and discessio (3b), which become for him, world-constructing verses. Tyconius’ process of understanding and his view of the world moves around these verses, to which he grants precedence and particular attention. We consider these literary expressions as motifs, because they are frequently repeated throughout Tyconius’ works and they give us clues about his theological convictions. Keeping in mind the structure of the present study, these motifs serve as an important bridge that connects the historical level of the reception, discussed in the previous chapter, with the theological level of the reception, that we shall see in the following chapter. In our analysis of the literary level of the reception, we will attempt to discover Tyconius’ performative textual creativity which tells us a great deal about the exegetical currents of fourth century Northern Africa. For this reason, it will become evident that we are in the heart of the study, which we shall call the maxi-part. It is divided into three sections entitled: a) The Members of the Lord’s Body, b) The Opposing Activities within the Lord’s Body, and c) The Separation within the Lord’s Body. Tyconius’ focus on the concept of the Lord’s body is noticeable throughout his works. This is the hermeneutic key with which he opens the mysteries of Scripture.3 This presentation of the data will help us to appreciate the exegete’s clear and coherent development of his interpretative skills in regards to 2 Thess 2:3–12. The quotations from, allusions to, and echoes of 2 Thess 2:3–12 will be analysed in their immediate and broader contexts, following Tyconius’ objective and inner logic presented in his texts. Special attention will be given to the way in which the author clusters the main motifs with other biblical passages, endowing them with various interpretative dimensions. This analysis will dis-

by an introductory formula, such as “the apostle says” or “it is written;” b) an allusion is a brief expression through which Tyconius consciously and intentionally points to 2 Thess 2:3–12. It can be a word or an idea whose source is clearly intended by an author; c) an echo is Tyconius’ faint resonance of 2 Thess 2:3–12, which can be either conscious or unconscious because the author’s mind is saturated with the source text. For scholarly discussions see, for example, Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus, BzHT 69 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 11–24; Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, SNTSMS 74 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 31–37; Udo J. Hebel, Intertextuality, Allusion, and Quotation: An International Bibliography of Critical Studies, BIWL 18 (New York: Greenwood Press, 1989), 5–8; Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 29–32. 3 With regard to 2 Thessalonians, Tobias Nicklas speaks about the “Kyriologie” as the interpretative key of this letter. See Nicklas, Der zweite Thessalonicherbrief, 33.

1. Members of the Lord’s Body

93

close, at least partially, Tyconius’ idea of Scripture and the authority he gives to 2 Thessalonians 2.

1. Members of the Lord’s Body In order to comprehend Tyconius’ way of dealing with the biblical text in general, we must first recognise the importance of the concept of the Lord’s body in his exegesis. We cannot ignore the metaphor of the body for at least three obvious reasons. Firstly, it is a visible and vital reality, which can be perceived by external senses. Secondly, the body makes us think about an organic and systemic entity that is composed of various members. Thirdly, this visible, organic and vital body is also vulnerable and can become sick or attacked by another foreign body, which can lead to its death. The metaphor of the body designates and determines Tyconius’ overall exegesis. In this section we will investigate what this body is, who are its members and how are they related to the Lord. This will be done with the help of Tyconius’ first major world-constructing motif of homo peccati (2  Thess 2:3c) and three minor motifs of antichristus (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7), filius extermini (2 Thess 2:3c) and ostendens se quod ipse est Deus (2 Thess 2:4b). The background to this concept of the membership of the body is that of two warring Christian parties, the Donatists and the Caecilianists, whose conflict pushed Tyconius to perceive 2 Thessalonians 2 in his own specific manner. 1.1 Homo peccati The introductory verses of 2 Thessalonians 2 (vv. 1–2) inform us about the confusion in the Thessalonian church because of the false claims regarding the “Day of the Lord.” The author of the letter does not mention any specific person or group outside the church who provoked this crisis. This could suggest that the problem came from among the members of their own congregation.4 The rest of the pericope (vv. 3–12), explaining the events which must precede the “Day of the Lord,” introduces the community to the correct eschatology. The coming of the “apostasy” (v. 3b) and the appearance of the “Man of Lawlessness” called “the Son of Destruction” (v. 3c) are two such events described in v. 3: Μή τις ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατήσῃ κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον. ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, Let no one deceive you in any way; because [that day will not come] unless the apostasy comes first and the Man of Lawlessness, the Son of Destruction is revealed.

See D. Michael Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, NAC 33 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 231. 4

94

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

It is not clear in the text if these two events are sequential or simultaneous. On the one hand, the separated verbs for each clause and the adverb “first” (πρῶτον) placed just after the noun ἡ ἀποστασία suggest that the Revelation of the “Man of Lawlessness” (ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας) takes places after the “apostasy.”5 On the other hand, the lack of the adverb “then” (ἔπειτα) or “second” (δεύτερον) along with the activity of the “Man of Lawlessness,” which corresponds to the notion of apostasy, questions the idea of successiveness.6 Following the logic of a Semitic expression in which a general personal noun followed by an adjectival genitive designates the person’s essential condition or quality, we can say that this figure personifies “lawlessness.”7 In fact, in 2 Thess 2:8, he is called “the Lawless One” (ὁ ἄνομος) who exists as if there is no law of God8 and acts rebelliously against God9 as the agent of Satan (2 Thess 2:9). Examining various OT and Qumran texts, as well as the OT pseudepigrapha and the NT texts, Röcker discovers that the Hebrew term Belial ‫ ))לַעַּיִלְב‬always refers to circumstances or persons who are against God’s law or against God. Based on those studies, he sees an association between the expressions for the “Man of Lawlessness” (v. 3c) or the “Lawless One” (v. 8a) and the Belial that describes someone “without value” or “lacking worth.”10 The “Man of Lawlessness” emerges not only as an anti-God figure (cf. v. 4), but also as an anti-Christ figure, by the fact of his false “parousia” (vv. 8–9a). Charles Giblin suggests that he is also the anti-prophet par excellence, which is indicated in v. 3 by the idiom employed: ἄνθρωπος (not ἀνήρ) plus a defining genitive in contrast to a given prophet of God (ἄνθρωπος τοῦ Θεοῦ).11 Tonstad notes that

See Jeffrey D. Weima, 1–2 Thessalonians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 510; Ben Witherington III, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, SRC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 216. 6 See Weima, 1–2 Thessalonians, 510. 7 See Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), §162. 8 Some NT authors, among them also Paul, understand the term ἡ ἀνομία as a synonym for ἁμαρτία (see: Rom 4:7; 1 John 3:4; Heb 10:17) what stems from the LXX [Eng.]: Pss 31:18; 51:2; 59:2; 103:10. See also Rom 6:19; 2 Cor 6:14 and Titus 2:14. 9 The broader context of 2 Thessalonians 2 clearly shows that the author does not speak about rejection of the Mosaic law, but about rebellion against God and his will. See, for example, Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 189; Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, AB 32B (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 419. 10 Röcker, Belial und Katechon, 380–87. 11 Cf. Charles H. Giblin, “2 Thessalonians 2 Re-Read as Pseudepigraphal: A Revised Reaffirmation of First and Second Thessalonians,” in Collins, The Thessalonian Correspondence, 462. 5

1. Members of the Lord’s Body

95

the Thessalonians await not only the appearing of the “Man of Lawlessness” but the exposure of his real nature.12 The concept of the “Man of Lawlessness,” presented to the community of Thessalonica, is applied a few centuries later by Tyconius to the Northern Africa context. The exegete operates on the VL translation, homo peccati (the “Man of sin”),13 which is found in many ancient Greek manuscripts (ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας) as an alternative form of ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας.14 This expression becomes for Tyconius the first major world-constructing motif that reveals his understanding of the Lord’s body. He alludes explicitly to this motif five times in the Liber Regularum15 and four times in the Expositio Apocalypseos,16 making these occurrences the pillars around which he constructs his vision of the divided church. We find the first instance of this motif in Rule One, where Tyconius, using his hermeneutical device of synecdoche, identifies the enemy body composed of many members, as the “Man of sin.” An entire group is represented in a singular figure. The introductory formula, “the apostle speaks,” indicates Tyconius’ direct usage of 2 Thess 2:3c: Et Dominus totum populum sponsam dicit et sororem; et apostolus virginem sanctam, et adversum corpus hominem peccati.17 And the Lord calls the whole people bride and sister (Song 5:1); and the apostle calls them a holy virgin (2 Cor 11:2) and speaks of the enemy body as the Man of sin (2 Thess 2:3c).

The positive feminine images like – bride, sister, holy virgin – utilised here by Tyconius, suggest that there is a beautiful and pure community,18 namely the church of the Lord, but this group is presented in opposition to another group, 12 Cf. Sigve K. Tonstad, “The Restainer Removed: A Truly Alarming Thought (2 Thess 2:1–12),” HBT 29 (2007): 142. 13 Latin text type D of the VL contains homo peccati. See VL, vol. 25:1, 325. The forms delinquentiae homo or homo delicti, found in Tertullian, appear to reflect the earlier Greek reading ἀνομίας. 14 Greek mss (A D F G K L P Ψ Ï lat sy) read ἁμαρτίας here, but several important mss (‫א‬ B 0278. 6. 81. 104. 1739. 1881. al co) read ἀνομίας. The external support for ἁμαρτίας is stronger but earlier witnesses favour the reading of ἀνομίας. In the corpus Paulinum, both terms occur nearly ten times, but it seems that scribes have changed the text to the more familiar term or have made a thematic agreement with the mention of ἀνομία in v. 7 and ὁ ἄνομος in v. 8, both of which refer to v. 3. See NTG, 631. 15 See LR I, 11.111; III, 2912; IV, 1718; VI, 3.113; VII, 10.111. 16 See EA II, 3511; IV, 307–8; V, 192–3; VII, 182. 17 LR I, 11.19–11. 18 In Tyconius the reference to παρθένον ἁγνήν (the holy virgin) that appears in 2 Cor 11:2 and which he also cites in his comment on Rev 14:3 (see EA IV, 4811–14) should be not taken literally. It refers to all those who being united with Christ keep themselves pure in love and faith. The idea of the church as a bride, however, can refer to Rev 19:7 and 21:2 – the image of the church after the final eschatological separation and trial that reigns with Christ in the New Jerusalem.

96

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

portrayed as the “Man of sin.” From the overall context, it is clear that for Tyconius, the term homo in 2 Thess 2:3c does not mean “human” in reference to both sexes, but rather to “man,” the masculine gender. Our exegete attempts to assign a particular gender to a particular image. Man, in this case, represents a negative image and woman a positive image of the church. Perhaps Tyconius wanted to give a sexual subtility to this image in order to show that a “man” cannot be a virginal bride; the enemy body cannot be Christ’s body. Tyconius’ play on the feminine and masculine genders, indicates the symbolic contrast between the positive and negative parts of the body. In the carefully crafted literary composition of his works, Tyconius progressively reveals the nature and function of the “Man of sin.” At the end of the third Rule, the author introduces another image that speaks about the same dualistic reality of one body. He contrasts the “sons of the devil” (filii diaboli) with “the sons of God” (filii Dei). The “sons of the devil” hide in the church, pictured by Tyconius as Paradise, and secretly play19 against the “sons of God”: Alia enim non est causa qua filii diaboli inrepant ad explorandam libertatem nostram, et simulent se fratres et in paradiso nostro velut Dei filios ludere, quam ut de subacta libertate filiorum Dei glorientur; qui portabant iudicium qualescumque illi fuerint, qui omnem sanctum persecuti sunt, qui prophetas occiderunt, qui semper Spiritui Sancto restiterunt; inimici crucis Christi, negantes Christum in carne dum eius membra oderunt, corpus peccati, filius exterminii in mysterium facinoris, qui veniunt secundum operationem Satanae in omni virtute, signis et prodigiis falsitatis, spiritalia nequitiae in caelestibus, quos Dominus Christus quem in carne persecuntur interficiet spiritu oris sui et destruet manifestatione adventus sui.20 There is no other reason why the sons of the devil creep in to spy out our freedom (cf. Gal 2:4), and make themselves like brothers, and play in our Paradise (cf. Gen 2:8; Luke 4:43) just like the sons of God, other than that they may pride themselves on breaking up the freedom of the sons of God, who will bear the judgment whoever they may be (cf. Gal 5:10), those who have persecuted every saint, who killed the prophets, who have always resisted the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 7:51), enemies of Christ’s cross (Phil 3:18), denying that Christ came in the flesh (1 John 2:22; 4:3) while they hated his members, the body of sin (cf. 2 Thess 2:3c), the Son of Destruction (2 Thess 2:3c) in the mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7a), they come by Satan’s work with all power and with false signs and wonders (2 Thess 2:9); they are the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavens (Eph 6:12), whom the Lord Christ, whom they persecuted in the flesh, will kill with the breath of his mouth and destroy when he comes in the manifestation of his advent (2 Thess 2:8).

The clustering of several NT texts with 2  Thess 2:3c.7a.9.8 is one of many interesting examples of Tyconius’ florilegia.21 This clearly shows that Tyconius See LR VII, 14.1. The similar image of the play among children (sons) understood as the antagonism between the flesh and the spirit had been already applied by Origen. Cf. Origen, In Genesim homiliae 7.2 (GCS 29.71–73). 20 LR III, 2916–18.1–10. Codex Remensis (R) and Codex Oxoniensis (O) of LR contain ministerium instead of mysterium. 21 A florilegium is a collection of passages excerpted from the writings of one or more authors. Florilegia first appeared in Greece in the 4th c. B.C.E to teach morals. The oldest 19

1. Members of the Lord’s Body

97

understands the Bible as one text that explains itself. The above florilegium describes these pseudo-brothers22 and their diabolic attitude. It seems as if Tyconius makes a mistake when alluding to 2 Thess 2:3c, where in place of the expected expression, homo peccati (the “Man of sin”), he writes corpus peccati (the “body of sin”) and then immediately continues the words of v. 3c, filius exterminii (the “Son of Destruction”) and vv. 7a.9.8 of 2 Thessalonians 2. We shall see that this is not a mistake, but rather Tyconius’ explicit rhetorical tactic through which he reminds his readers what has been said in the first Rule, namely that the “enemy body is the Man of sin” (adversum corpus hominem peccati).23 In fact, after introducing this opposing body, he continues on in the same paragraph, again alluding to 2 Thess 2:3c and also to v. 3b, but now with the expression homo peccati: Tempus est enim quo haec non in mysteriis sed aperte dicantur, inminente discessione quod est revelatio hominis peccati, discedente Loth a Sodomis.24 For this is the time when those things may be said not in secret but openly, with the imminent rebellion (2 Thess 2:3b) which is the Revelation of the Man of sin (2 Thess 2:3c), in the departure (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) of Lot from Sodom (cf. Gen 19:15–17).

In this way, Tyconius gradually establishes a close link between the “body of sin” (corpus peccati), that is the “enemy body” (adversum corpus) and the “Man of sin” (homo peccati), both in the present and eschatological dimensions. It is significant to note, among other things, that the above passage, elaborated on by Tyconius, is characterised by the language of hostility and tension. The Donatist-Caecilianist conflict fits well here as the historical background of Tyconius’ reception of this motif. The exegete moves, however, to another level, portraying this hostility as the spiritual, invisible reality where Christ and the devil stand in opposition to each other. As we shall see in the course of our analysis, in Tyconius’ system of the bipartite body, Christ and the devil are heads which are inseparably united with their respective bodies, and though intrinsically divided, they presently constitute one body of the church. The body of sin is belligerent towards the gift of salvation revealed in Christ’s cross, resists the truth of the Holy Spirit, and by persecuting the sons and daughters of God, falls short of love. The eschatological dimension of the “Man of sin” is further presented in Rules Four and Six. Tyconius, applying here his hermeneutical rule on the example of the Christian florilegia are collections of biblical texts in Cyprian’s Testimonia ad Quirinium. See Joseph T. Lienhard, “Florilegia,” in Fitzgerald, Augustine through the Ages, 370. 22 In this chapter we shall translate the Latin fratres, often used by Tyconius, as “brothers” but refer to both “brothers” and “sisters,” though soror is used by him (very rarely) when he wishes to distinguish genders. The same applies to other Latin terms which might suggest reference to masculine gender, but on the semantic and theological level, the author certainly thinks of both sexes who compose the body of the church. 23 LR I, 11.110–11. 24 LR III, 2910–12.

98

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

species and genus, where the historical referent in the text of Scripture should be understood in a figurative sense, interprets Sodom as the left side of the bipartite church: Aliquae vero species sinistrae tantum sunt, ut Sodoma, sicut scriptum est: Audite verbum Domini principes Sodomorum, et: Quae vocatur spiritaliter Sodoma et Aegyptus, ubi et Dominus eorum crucifixus est. Ex his Sodomis exiet Loth, quod est discessio, ut reveletur homo peccati.25 But so many others are sinister species, like Sodom, just as it is written: Hear the word of the Lord, you princes of the Sodomites (Isa 1:10) and: That which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where even their Lord was crucified (Rev 11:8). Lot will depart from those of Sodom (cf. Gen 19:15–17; 2 Thess 2:3b); which is the departure (2 Thess 2:3b) in order that the Man of sin may be revealed (2 Thess 2:3c).

The reference to Rev 11:8 justifies Tyconius’ argument that Sodom is a type of those who spiritually oppose the right side of the body, which is represented here in the person of Lot. The eschatological separation of the righteous from sinners will make it evident who comprises the “Man of sin.” This moment of truth at the eschaton is now a prophecy of recapitulation which refers to that crucial day of historical time.26 The persecution and violence in North Africa is, for Tyconius, a sufficient sign of warning that the eschatological event is near: Quod autem Danihel dixit in Africa geritur, neque in eodem tempore finis. Sed quoniam, licet non in eo tempore finis, in eo tamen titulo futurum est, propterea Tunc dixit, id est cum similiter factum fuerit per orbem, quod est discessio et revelatio hominis peccati.27 But what Daniel said is going on now in Africa, and the end is not at this time. But since, even if the end is not at this time, by this same reason it is about to be, nevertheless: therefore, he said, Then, that is, when it will have occurred similarly throughout the world, which is the departure (2 Thess 2:3b) and the Revelation of the Man of sin (2 Thess 2:3c).

Tyconius’ experience of the ecclesiastical reality helps him to comprehend that the “Man of sin” persecutes the church, the Lord’s body. According to him, the embodiment of the “Man of sin” is not, primarily, Constantine or even Caecilianists, but anyone who hates other Christians.28 For Tyconius, those who practice hostility already exclude themselves and they will be excluded from appertaining to Christ at the moment of the open Revelation of the enemy body. The open manifestation of the “Man of sin” at the eschaton necessarily draws our attention to the Revelation of Christ, which, actually, is the only authoritative, absolute and salvific manifestation. These divine attributes cannot belong LR IV, 1714–18. See LR VI, 3.15–6: “Aliquotiens autem non sunt recapitulationes huius modi sed futurae similitudines.” (“Sometimes, however, the recapitulations are not of this sort, but are likenesses of what is to be”). 27 LR VI, 3.18–13. 28 Hatred as the cardinal aspect of the “Man of sin” will be discussed later in the context of the minor motif of the Antichrist. It is noteworthy that the Codex Modoetianus (M) instead of “revelatio hominis peccati” has here: “quod… fecerit: id est revalatio antichristi.” 25 26

1. Members of the Lord’s Body

99

to the Revelation of the “Man of sin” whose time of exposure, in fact, depends on Christ. We should also assume that Christ’s Revelation brings salvation to those who decide to belong to him, in a radical contrast to the Revelation of the “Man of sin,” who instead will become an instrument of condemnation for those who appertain to him. His ‘Revelation,’ therefore, should be understood as a pseudo-Revelation. At this point of our analysis, we become more aware of the dualistic language applied in the above examples. We have earlier said that the devil is the head of the enemy body, namely of the “Man of sin.” This relation is nourished by lies and falsity, but its effectiveness brings division in the church. The devil, in his own pride, imitates God through the members of his body and attempts to appropriate divine attributes. Tyconius explains this phenomenon by commenting on Ezek 28:2–3, where again, by applying the hermeneutical tool of synecdoche and playing on dualism, proposes his original interpretation of the figure of the king of Babylon as the enemy of God, namely, the false church. In contrast, he presents the person of Daniel29 as the faithful servant of God, that is, the true church: Tu autem homo es, et non Deus. Et diabolus in homine homo dictus est, sicut Dominus dixit in Evangelio: Inimicus homo hoc fecit, et interpretatus est dicens: Qui ea seminat diabolus est. Homo diaboli Deus esse non potest. Propterea in utrumque convenit: Tu homo es et non Deus. Dedisti cor tuum tamquam cor Dei. Numquid sapientior es tu Danihele? In Danihele totum corpus est Ecclesiae, quia non potest esse homo peccati sapientior in negotiis vitae, sicut ille sapientior est in suo quam filii lucis.30 But you are a man and not God (Ezek 28:2). And the devil in a man is called a man, just as the Lord said in the Gospel: An enemy man did this (Matt 13:28), and he interpreted saying: He who sowed these is the devil (Matt 13:39). A man of the devil cannot be God. Therefore, it applies to both: You are a man and not God (Ezek 28:2). You have given your heart as if it were the heart of God. Are you wiser than Daniel? (Ezek 28:2–3). In Daniel, the whole body is the church’s, because the Man of sin (2 Thess 2:3c) cannot be wiser in the affairs of life, just as he is wiser in his own than the sons of light (cf. Luke 16:8). Is the Daniel of Ezekiel 28 the same person as in the book of Daniel? That question seems to have been problematic already in antiquity. See Enrico Norelli, Ippolito. L’Anticristo. De Antichristo (Nardini: Firenze, 1987), 200; Origen, Contra Celsum 3.45 (SC 136.108–10); Ambrose, De officiis ministrorum 2.11 (PL 16.106); Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani 2.105.241, (CSEL 52.156). Daniel Block demonstrates that Ezekiel’s Daniel is the same person as in the book of Daniel but attempts to investigate further saying: “Although Ezekiel’s Daniel has traditionally been identified with the Daniel of the biblical book, this interpretation raises several questions. How could a younger contemporary of Ezekiel earn the right to stand alongside traditional paragons of piety like Noah and Job within such a short period of time? What is Daniel the contemporary Hebrew doing in the company of two non-Israelite heroes of long ago? Why does Ezekiel spell the name dn´l, rather than dny´l?” See Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1–24 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 447–48. For further discussion see also: Harold H. Dressler, “The Identification of the Ugaritic Dnil with the Daniel of Ezekiel,” VT 29 (1979): 231–41. 30 LR VII, 9.24–8–10.19–12. 29

100

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

The ‘wisdom’ of the “Man of sin” who, as we have said above, constitutes the “sons of the devil,” is involved in the matters of the evil world, while the wisdom of the “sons of light” is involved in the affairs of eternal life. The interest of each group determines the dualistic difference between true and false wisdom. This point is anthropologically suggestive because it reminds us of the original sin, where the human being, by responding to demonic temptation, has misunderstood his/her own position in the order of creation and his/her relation to God. In this case, the “Man of sin” has lost the sense of the ontological distinction between the mystery of the nature of God and the mystery of human nature. By imitation the “Man of sin” has been trying to be someone who he is not and never will be. As a consequence, this pretence leads the “Man of sin” into an inner division and frustration which in turn excludes him from any kind of relationship with God. A further understanding of Tyconius’ literary motif of homo peccati is found in his Expositio Apocalypseos. The following literary analysis shall demonstrate that the hermeneutics established by Tyconius in the Liber Regularum are equally applicable in his exegesis of the book of Revelation. Various apocalyptic images, which Tyconius clusters with the motif of homo peccati, illustrate even more the nature and function of the “Man of sin.” He explains the book of Revelation with the help of the motif, and at the same time the motif is interpreted in light of Revelation. Tyconius places the first occurrence of the discussed motif in the context of the opening of the fourth seal of the scroll, described in Rev 6:7–8. The passage presents a pale horse whose rider is Death and who is followed by Hades. As Tyconius explains further in his text, it is the devil himself who sits on this horse and executes power over a fourth part, which is the church.31 It seems that Tyconius, through this image, intended to refer to the seventh mystical Rule of the Liber Regularum: On the Devil and his Body, just as the white horse and its rider are a portrayal of the first mystical Rule: On the Lord and His Body. These two parts of the church have to coexist until the appointed time. Tyconius’ point here is to make evident the open hypocrisy of the evil 31 EA II, 3526–27: “In hanc ergo quartam partem data potestas est diabolo sedenti super equum pallidum, qui est populus mortuus.” (“Therefore, against this fourth part, power was given to the devil sitting upon a pale horse which is dead people”). Tyconius seems to be the first one to interpret the rider of the pale horse as the devil. Victorinus of Pettau (250–303) associates the pale horse with the catastrophes described in Luke 21:11 when the souls of many of the impious will be devoured. See Victorinus of Pettau, Commentary on the Apocalypse in Ancient Christian Texts. Latin Commentaries on Revelation, ed. and trans. William C. Weinrich (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 11. After Tyconius, Caesarius of Arles (470–542), for example, in his Exposition on the Apocalypse interprets the pale horse as evil people, see ibid., 73 and Bede the Venerable (ca. 673–735) in his Exposition on the Apocalypse sees in it the image of the heretics “who clothe themselves as though they were Catholics,” ibid., 129.

1. Members of the Lord’s Body

101

forces embodied in the hidden works of darkness performed by false brothers in the church: Duae partes sunt in mundo, populus dei et populus diaboli. Nam et populus diaboli in duas divisus est partes, quae contra unam pugnant. Propterea ecclesia vocata est tertia pars, et falsi fratres altera tertia, et gentilitas tertia. Antequam autem ubique homo peccati reveletur et publice manifestetur filius perditionis, iam ex parte revelatus est, et ubi tres partes videbantur, iam quarta manifestata est.32 There are two parts in the world, the people of God and the people of the devil. In fact, the people of the devil is also divided into two parts, which fight against only one. Because of this, the church was called a third part (Zech 13:8; Rev 8:12), and the false brothers another third, and the heathen world a third. Moreover, before the Man of sin is revealed everywhere and the Son of Perdition is manifested publicly (2 Thess 2:3c), he has already been revealed from [one] part; and when three parts were seen, now a fourth is manifested.

An important issue which we notice in this passage is the shift of our attention from the dualistic vision of the church to the dualistic vision of the world. The world is composed of the people of God who are an integral and coherent reality, in contrast to the people of the devil who are an example of another dualism, namely the inner division between the false brothers and pagans. The people of the devil, he teaches, are both outside and inside the church, and fight against the one true church. The most dangerous, however, are those who pretend to be brothers, but in fact constitute the “Man of sin.” Tyconius underlines both aspects of homo peccati: present, because “he has already been revealed from [one] part,” and future, “before [he] is manifested publicly.” Commenting on Rev 13, the exegete identifies “a beast rising out of the sea” sometimes as the devil, sometimes as the body of the devil, sometimes as one of the heads of that beast, and sometimes as the bishops.33 This interpretative flexibility follows the logic of the transition explained in the seventh mystical Rule. In this case, Tyconius regards this beast as “the whole body of the devil,”34 that is, the “Man of sin,” who persecutes those who belong to Christ: EA II, 356–13. EA IV, 259–14: “Aliquando enim diabolum dicit bestiam, aliquando corpus eius, aliquando unum ex capitibus ipsius bestiae quod quasi occisum resurrexit, quod est simulatio verae fidei, aliquando praepositos solos dicit bestiam. Nunc ergo bestiam ascendentem de mari corpus diaboli dicit.” (“For sometimes he calls the devil a beast, sometimes his body, and sometimes one of the heads of that beast, which as if slain [Rev 13:3], rose again, which is an imitation of the true faith. And sometimes he calls only the bishops a beast. Therefore, now he calls the body of the devil a beast coming up of the sea”). I understand the Latin word praepositorum as “bishops” after the translation of Gumerlock in Tyconius, 39, n. 93, which corresponds well with the context of the Donatist-Caecilianist controversy. 34 Cf. EA IV, 301–4: “Et datum est ei, id est permissum est a deo toti corpori diaboli, os loqui magna et blasphemias, et data est ei potestas facere menses quadraginta duos, non aperte, sed cum se dei filios dicunt, dei filiis insidiantur.” (“And then was given to him, that is, to the whole body of the devil it was permitted by God [to have], a mouth to speak great things and blasphemies. And power was given to him to do [this] for forty-two months (Rev 32 33

102

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

Deinde aperuit os suum in blasphemiam ad Deum. Ante enim per tres annos et dimidium non aperto ore blasphemant, sed in mysterio facinoris, quod facta discessione et revelato homine peccati nudabitur.35 Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God (Rev 13:6). For previously they blaspheme throughout the three and a half years not with an open mouth but in the mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7a), which is exposed when the departure (2 Thess 2:3b) happens and the Man of sin is revealed (2 Thess 2:3c).

The singular form aperuit os suum in blasphemiam in Rev 13:6, and then the plural form in Tyconius’ comment non aperto ore blasphemant, confirm his hermeneutical logic: the beast represents the enemy body, that is, the “Man of sin.” The exegete, having in mind the ecclesial turmoil of his time, makes a spiritual interpretation of this passage. The precise quantity of time, “the three and half years” or “forty-two months,” has for him, by means of synecdoche, a mystical significance. It is the whole period of the church, between two advents of Christ, when the spiritual, internal conflict in the bipartite body of the Lord takes place.36 Tyconius proposes a pedagogical understanding of eschatology that spreads in time and prepares the church for the parousia of Christ. The “Man of sin” shall be revealed at the crucial eschatological moment when the church will have to face the final battle with the evil forces, before Christ’s ultimate word of justice. Another apocalyptic image associated with the “Man of sin” is found in Tyconius’ comments on Rev 14:20. The exegete brings into play the relationship between the winepress and the city: Et calcatum est torcular extra civitatem, id est extra ecclesiam; facta enim discessione foris erit omnis homo peccati.37 And the winepress is trodden outside the city (Rev 14:20), that is, outside the church. For after the departure (2 Thess 2:3b) happens, everyone outside [the church] will be a Man of sin (2 Thess 2:3c).

13:5), not openly, but when they say that they are children of God, they plot against the children of God”). 35 EA IV, 304–8. 36 Tyconius seems to be original in his logic on numbers and periods in the Bible. In Rule Five he explains for example that 6000 are the years of the age of the world; 1000 years symbolises the reign of the saints; 7, 10, 12, 144000 denote the number of the redeemed (cf. Rev 7:14). Other numbers like 1260 days (cf. Rev 11:3), 42 months (Rev 11:2), 350 years that derive from the three and half days of Rev 11:11 refer to the whole period of the church. Some similarities can be found in Victorinus of Pettau who in his comment on Rev 11:3 makes his calculation about the time of preaching of the two witnesses: “this one thousand, two hundred and sixty makes forty-two months. Their preaching, therefore, is for three years and six months, and the kingdom of the antichrist again as much.” In his comments on Rev 12:6 Victorinus says that the antichrist shall come after the three years and six months of the preaching of Elijah. See Weinrich, Ancient Christian Texts, 14, 17. See also Paula Fredriksen Landes, “Tyconius and the End of the World,” REAug 18 (1982): 59–75. 37 EA V, 191–3.

1. Members of the Lord’s Body

103

The winepress was usually situated in the vineyard, not within the walls of the city (cf. Isa 63:2), and people used to gather and tread on grapes, not on the winepress. If Tyconius compares the church to the city, the “Man of sin” must be represented in the winepress, which is not only outside the true church, but will also be destroyed on the day of judgment. Tyconius emphasises here, contrary to his fellow Donatists, not the external membership in the pure church, but the internal belonging to the true church. The eschatological fulfilment will reveal the spiritual truth about each person which cannot be easily detected at present. For Tyconius, the time of the final and intensified persecution is revealed in the opening of the sixth seal (cf. Rev 6:12–17), the blowing of the sixth trumpet (cf. Rev 9:13–15), and the pouring out of the sixth bowl (cf. Rev 16:12). The devil, who is bound at the present time, will be released just before the second coming of Christ: Post ea oportet eum solvi modico tempore, id est tempore antichristi, cum revelatus fuerit homo peccati et acceperit totam persequendi potestatem, qualem numquam habuit ab initio.38 After these things it is necessary for him to be loosed for a short time (Rev 20:3), that is, in the time of Antichrist (cf. 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7), when the Man of sin (2 Thess 2:3c) will have been revealed and will have received all power for persecuting, power such as he never had from the beginning (cf. Matt 24:21).

At first glance, this passage appears to suggest that Tyconius speaks about two different figures: the Antichrist and the “Man of sin.” But the entire context indicates that the focal point is on time, precisely on the time of the Antichrist, which is the time of the final persecution that will reveal the identity of the false brothers who now are hiding within the church. They are “in league with the devil, although saying that they are Christians, will fight against the church.”39 Tyconius’ use of the Johannine term “Antichrist” (antichristus) would suggest that he considers it to be another name for the “Man of sin.” We are going to understand this better in the following analysis. 1.2 Antichristus The above discussion helps us to understand that the enemy body is the “Man of sin,” who works secretly in the Lord’s body by creating an anti-church because he is the Anti-christ. We shall consider the term “Antichrist” as a minor motif which Tyconius binds thematically with 2 Thess 2:3c.40 The motif occurs four EA VII, 181–4. EA III, 483–4: “sed sub Christianitatis nomine diabolo inhaerentes contra ecclesiam dimicare.” 40 Early church fathers used to interpret the “Man of sin” as the “Antichrist.” Irenaeus of Lyons, addressing the figure of the Antichrist in Against Heresies follows the antichristology of 2 Thessalonians 2. For him, the Antichrist will be the “recapitulation of apostasy and rebellion.” See Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses 5.28.2 (ANF 1.557). Hippolytus writes an entire treatise on this figure entitled De Christo et Antichristo (GCS 1) and also in his Commentarii in Danielem (GCS 1.1) refers many times to this Adversary. Both works con38 39

104

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

times in the Liber Regularum41 and five times in the Expositio Apocalypseos.42 Already at the beginning of the first Rule, Tyconius explains that Christ “comes continually in the birth of his body … For if the reborn are made members of Christ and the members form the body of Christ, it is Christ who comes, since the nativity is the advent.”43 At the same time and in the same manner, the Antichrist comes attempting to imitate Christ’s advent:44 Et iterum: Sicut audistis quia Antichristus venit. Iterum de eodem corpore: Si enim iste qui venit alium Iesum praedicat. Unde Dominus cum de signo adventus sui interrogaretur, de illo adventu suo coepit disputare qui ab inimico corpore signis et prodigiis imitari potest. Cavete inquit ne quis vos seducat, multi enim venient in nomine meo, id est in nomine corporis mei.45 And again: As you have heard that the Antichrist is coming (1 John 2:18). Again, concerning that same body: For if he who comes preaches another Jesus (2 Cor 11:4). Wherefore, when the Lord was asked concerning the sign of his advent, he who can be imitated by an enemy body with signs and wonders (cf. 2 Thess 2:9), began to debate concerning his advent. Beware, he said, lest someone lead you astray; for many will come in my name (Matt 24:4), that is, in the name of my body.

We have seen in the second chapter that the Donatists, considering themselves to be the faithful followers of Christ, regarded Caecilianists as false Christians. Tyconius, being aware of this doctrine, transfers the historical situation into the spiritual level through his reception of 2 Thessalonians 2. The transformative assimilation, that took place in him by the encounter with this biblical text, allowed him to see the surrounding reality with ‘spiritual eyes,’ that is, through the criteria of the Spirit of Christ. Tyconius does not terminate his reflection on what his physical eyes can observe, but he insightfully understands that a human being who performs evil is spiritually connected with unhuman spiritual sider the eschatological teaching of 2 Thessalonians as a supplementary explanation of the concept of the Antichrist. Tertullian in Adversus Marcionem 5.16 (PL 2.510–12) argues that 2 Thessalonians refers to the Antichrist and not to the “Creator’s Christ,” as Marcion believed. 41 LR I, 99; VI, 4.112, 4.219, 4.44. 42 EA I, 4111.14; II, 3547; VI, 118; VII, 182. 43 LR I, 93–6: “quoniam corpore suo iugiter venit nativitate … Si enim renati Christi membra efficiuntur et membra corpus efficiunt, Christus est qui venit, quoniam nativitas adventus est.” Various ancient authors deal with the theme of the continuous birth of Christ in the church presenting its different theological aspects. See, for example, Hippolytus, De Christo et Antichristo 61.1 (BP 10.142–44); Origen, In Genesim homiliae 3.7 (GCS 29.49); Primasius, Commentarius in Apocalypsin 3.12 (CCL 92.181). 44 Origen also writes about the continuous coming of the Antichrist who pretends to be Christ. See Commentariorum series in Matthaeum 33 (GCS 38.59–64); Commentarii in Iohannem 32.214 (SC 385 276–78). See also: Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses 5.25.4; 5.28.2; 5.29.2 (SC 153.320; 348–356; 366); Hippolytus, De Christo et Antichristo 5–6, BP 10, ed. E. Norelli (Firenze: Nardini Editore, 1987), 72–74; Victorinus of Pettau, Commentarius in Apocalypsin 13.3 (SC 423.106–108). 45 LR I, 99–11.1–4. This is the only instance where Tyconius instead of his preferred expression corpus adversum (see LR I, 11.110–11; IV, 1121; VII, 3.211, 85, 14.219) speaks about corpus inimicum.

1. Members of the Lord’s Body

105

forces. He again makes use of dualism, comparing the coming of the body of Christ with the coming of the body of the Antichrist. Christ and the Antichrist are born continually in the church in the form of good and false brothers, but at the final moment, the Lord’s body shall experience the advent of the Antichrist immediately prior to the ultimate advent of Christ. The author seems to be a little embarrassed with his exegetical method, saying: “Thus, it will not be absurd that we wish the whole body to be understood from one.”46 For Tyconius, titles or names properly belonging to one person can designate an entire group. The Antichrist, the exegete further explains, still seeks to “take his seat in the temple of God, claiming that he himself is God” (2 Thess 2:4), that is, “that he himself is the church,”47 but in fact he is the anti-church. Tyconius elaborates this theme by adding two other biblical passages, from Dan 11:36 and Matt 24:15, identifying the Antichrist as the “the final king,” whose place in the church will be “an abomination of desolation” (abominationem vastationis).48 Following Tyconius’ typological interpretation, we should deduce that the Antichrist is to be understood not as a historical figure, as in the previous interpretative traditions, but as an evil within the church that is ‘incarnated’ in the false brothers. Tyconius does not want his readers to question whether they are or are not the true members of the Lord’s body; hence, with insights from the sixth Rule, he helps, to a certain degree, to determine this fact. The truth-verifying factor is to be found in his explanation of the incarnation of Christ: Nec illud praetereundum puto, quod Spiritus sine mysteriis vel allegoria aliud sonare aliud intellegi voluit, sicut per Iohannem: Multi pseudoprophetae prodierunt in hunc mundum. In isto cognoscite Spiritum Dei: omnis spiritus qui soluit Iesum et negat in carne venisse de Deo non est, sed hic de Antichristo est, quod audistis quoniam venit, et nunc in isto mundo praesens est … Sed hanc negationem in opere non in voce esse, et unumquemque non ex professione sed ex fructibus intellegi debere, in omni ipsa epistula, qua non nisi de fratribus bonis et malis scripsit.49 I think that this ought not to be disregarded, because the Spirit wished both to be understood and to speak without mystery or allegory, just as the Spirit said through John: Many false prophets have gone out into this world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit which is separate from Jesus and denies that he came in the flesh is not from God, but this one is from the Antichrist, which you heard is coming and now is present in this world … LR I, 108–9: “Nec illud erit absurdum quod ex uno totum corpus volumus intellegi.” LR I, 1011–14.1: “sicut per Apostolum: Super omnem qui dicitur Deus aut quod colitur. Qui dicitur Deus, ecclesia est, quod autem colitur, Deus summus est, ut in templum Dei sedeat ostendens se quod ipse est Deus, id est quod ipse sit ecclesia.” (“just as by the apostle: Who is called God above everything that is or that is worshipped. Who is called God is the church, but what is worshipped is the highest God so that in the temple of God he may sit proclaiming himself that he is God, that is, that he is the church”). 48 See LR I, 105–8. 49 LR VI, 4.17–17. 46 47

106

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

(1 John 4:1–3). But in every way this same epistle, in which he wrote only about good and evil brethren, warns by this same type of speaking that this denial is in deed, not in word, and that each person ought to be known not by what he says but by his fruits.

Tyconius’ personal witness to the evil that was born from the Donatist-Caecilianist controversy led him to the understanding that this conflict is a spiritual matter, and as such, it should be interpreted that way. His dilemma was not about which group is more or less right regarding traditores, rebaptism, or a ritual purity, but about a personal deliberate decision of each individual to belong either to the Spirit of Christ or to the spirit of the Antichrist. For Tyconius, the authentic ‘orthodox’ Christian attitude had to be manifested in concrete acts of love towards God and brothers. Therefore, according to him, there is a clear connection between Christian ‘orthodoxy’ (what one believes) and ‘orthopraxy’ (what one lives). This means that one should receive, first in his own life, the incarnation of Christ who is love, and make it a criterion of his own actions. For Tyconius, Christ is incarnated in other Christians; hence, the acts of hatred are a real denial of the Lord’s coming in the flesh: Aliud maius et evidentius signum agnoscendi Antichristi non esse dixit, quam qui negat Christum in carne, id est odit fratrem.50 He said that there is not another greater and more evident sign for knowing the Antichrist than that one denies Christ in the flesh, that is, one who hates his brother (cf. 1 John 4:2).

Christ, therefore, is incarnated not only in his physical body but also in the body of the church, where the relation among her members determines the growth either of the Lord’s body or the body of the devil. This moral teaching of Tyconius on the essence of the Christian life reveals the immoral attitude of the Antichrist, who by being in coalition with the devil, negates the possibility of love. The false brothers are only a caricature of love, by pretending to be what they are not. They make an unsuccessful effort to achieve truthfulness, but in fact they deform the truth and therefore create a ridiculous reality of love: Dominum autem Christum Antichristus non voto sed occasione praedicat. Alio tendens per Christi nomen ingreditur, quo sibi viam sternat, quo sub Christi nomine ventri pareat.51 However, the Antichrist was preaching that Christ is Lord, not out of commitment but as a pretence. Holding to another, he enters by the name of Christ, by which he paves a way for himself, by which he may fulfil the wishes of his belly (cf. Phil 3:19) under the name of Christ.

One of Tyconius’ goals is to object to the Donatist teaching about judging who is ‘orthodox’ or pure, and who is not. According to him, it is not the role of the earthly church to classify Christians as allies of Christ or of the devil, as wheat or as weed (cf. Matt 13:24–43). Referring further to Eph 5:31, Tyconius

50 51

LR VI, 4.218–20. LR VI, 4.44–6.

1. Members of the Lord’s Body

107

states that “the Lord and the church are one flesh;”52 therefore, it is impossible during this lifetime to make a transparent distinction between true and false members of Christ’s body. The only criterion, elaborated on by Tyconius, is the criterion of ‘incarnation,’ which he confirms by other references to the letter of John: “anyone who claims that he is in the light and hates his brother is still in the dark” (1 John 2:9)53 and “anyone who says that he loves God and hates his brother is a liar” (1 John 4:20).54 The exegete is convinced that hating the members of Christ’s body means the negation of Christ’s incarnation.55 In this way, one contributes to and participates in the incarnation of the Antichrist, that is, the rising of the “Man of sin.” As we have seen, the Donatists believed that the true church was geographically confined to Northern Africa and they were the only victims of the Antichrist’s persecution. Tyconius disagrees with this view and looks at the events around him as the paradigm of what is going to happen throughout the world. According to his way of thinking, everybody will experience the eschatological testing that reveals the truthfulness of their hearts. Tyconius explains this point in his Expositio Apocalypseos, analysing the situation of the church in Philadelphia in Rev 3:10. The insufficient strength of that community is invigorated by their faith,56 which helps them to defeat their enemies and signals the eschatological victory assured by the constant presence of Christ in his church: Sicut enim in Africa factum est, ita oportet in toto mundo revelari antichristum et eodem modo ab ecclesia ubique superari, quo ab ea in parte superatus est ad ostendendum novissimi certaminis modum. Non enim, ut aliqui putant, antichristus uno in loco erit ecclesiam persecuturus, cum rex sit novissimus in toto mundo regnaturus, qui se dicat deum. Nunc vero occultus est in ecclesia, sed verus Christus deus occultus numquam de medio ecclesiae discessit.57 For just as was done in Africa, so it is necessary that Antichrist be revealed in the whole world, and in the same way be overcome everywhere by the church, where he was overcome by her in part for the purpose of showing the way that the last struggle [will happen]. For Antichrist, as some think, will not persecute the church in [only] one place, since he will rule as the last king over the whole earth (cf. Dan 7:24–25), he who calls himself God (2 Thess

LR VI, 4.214–15: “quoniam Dominus et Ecclesia una caro est.” LR VI, 4.25–6: “Qui dicit se in luce esse, et fratrem suum odit, in tenebris est usque adhuc.” 54 LR VI, 4.26–7: “Qui dixerit quoniam diligit Deum, et fratrem suum odit, mendax est.” 55 LR VI, 4.27–11: “Si enim ut dicit diligit Deum, doceat operibus, adhaereat Deo, diligat Deum in fratre. Si credit Christum incarnatum, quiescat odisse membra Christi. Si credit Verbum carnem factum, quid persequitur Verbum in carne?” (“For if, as he says he loves God, let him explain this by his deeds, let him adhere to God, let him love God in his brother. If he believes that Christ became incarnate, let him cease to hate the members of Christ. If he believes that the Word was made flesh [cf. John 1:14], why does he persecute the Word in the flesh?”). 56 EA I, 394: “quod modica virtus fide roboretur.” 57 EA I, 4110–18. 52

53

108

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

2:4). But now he is hidden in the church, but the true Christ, the hidden God (cf. Isa 45:15), has never departed (2 Thess 2:3b) from the midst (2 Thess 2:7c) of the church.

The last king, the Antichrist, “who calls himself God” (2 Thess 2:4), hides in the church (occultus est in ecclesia), but at the appointed time he will be forced to depart from the true church where “the true Christ, the hidden God” (deus occultus) reigns. Christ has not abandoned his body to the forces of evil and “never departed from the midst of the church,” but has allowed this temporary coexistence of the good and the evil in the church. Tyconius’ play on the word occultus underlines the mysterious aspect of the ecclesial reality. The eschatological victory is assured for those who are hidden in Christ and who, like the inhabitants of Philadelphia, do not lose their faith while facing all sorts of persecution. Among his comments on Rev 6:7–8, that we have mentioned earlier, Tyconius explains that the rider of the pale horse is the devil. He is also the rider of the red and black horses, because they constitute one and the same reality of evil. The devil brings death to his part of the body, in opposition to the white horse, the church of Christ who brings life.58 The black horse, Tyconius explains, “is the crowd of the false brothers” who in their hypocrisy “harm their companions through the works of darkness.” They believe “they are holding a scale of justice,” but, in fact, by persecuting and hating other Christians, they serve the devil:59

58 Cf. EA II, 3536–38: “Isti autem tres equi unum sunt, qui exierunt unde albus exiit; contra album et unum sessorem habent diabolum, qui est mors, sicut dominus vita dictus est.” (“Moreover, these three horses, which have gone out from where the white horse has gone out, are one. Against the white one, they also have one rider, the devil, who is called death, just as the Lord is called life” [cf. John 11:40; 14:6; Rev 1:18]). For Victorinus of Pettau, the white horse symbolises the Holy Spirit and the black horse, associated with famine, plays a special role in the time of the Antichrist. See Weinrich, Ancient Christian Texts, 10–11. Caesarius of Arles interprets the white horse as the church, the prophets and the apostles, and in its rider he recognises not only Christ but also the Holy Spirit. The red horse, for him, is “an evil and wicked people, made bloody from its rider, the devil.” The black horse he interprets as “an evil people who works in concert with the devil” and the pale horse as “evil people who never cease to incite persecutions.” He recognises after Tyconius that these three horses are one and they fight against the white horse, ibid. 72–73. Similarly, Bede the Venerable sees in the rider of the white horse the Lord who presides over the church. The red horse symbolises “an evil people bloody from their rider, the devil” and the black horse “is the troop of false brothers who … harm their friends through works of darkness,” ibid. 129. 59 EA II, 347–9: “Equus niger falsorum caterva est fratrum, qui, dum se fingunt iustitiae libram tenere, socios laedunt per opera tenebrarum.” (“The black horse is the crowd of false brothers, who, while they think they are holding a scale of justice, harm their companions through works of darkness” [cf. Rom 13:12]); 3540–41, “in nigro, qui libram ostentat et laedit, hypocrisin, quae est opera tenebrarum.” (“In the black one, which holds a scale and causes harm [cf. Rev 6:5–6], he described hypocrisy, which is works of darkness” [cf. Rom 13:12]).

1. Members of the Lord’s Body

109

Sed quod in Africa geritur exemplum est per orbem futurae Revelationis antichristi, qui nunc sub libra manu prolata opera iniquitatis exercet.60 But what is taking place in Africa is an example of the future Revelation of Antichrist throughout the world, who, now, under the scale in his outstretched hand, performs works of iniquity (cf. 2 Thess 2:7a; Rom 13:12).

Another reference to Africa indicates how strongly Tyconius is affected by the complex situation of Christians in his region. He could not comprehend why disciplinary or theological convictions were more important than mutual love and reconciliation. Those who were ready to give their lives for doctrines seemed to be blind to recognise that through hatred and rivalry they served the devil and his anti-church. One of the functions of synecdoche that we have seen was recognising a part for the whole and the whole for a part. By means of synecdoche or specific numbers, Tyconius also considers a quantity of time in Scripture to be mystical.61 This is the case, for example, in his interpretation of Rev 17:10, where he identifies the seven kings with seven emperors.62 In his list of the emperors, he omits Gaius Caligula (37–41) and makes an error in the order of Nero (54–68) and Galba (68–69). He places Nero in sixth place and the expected king, Otho (15th January–16 April 69), in the seventh place:

EA II, 3546–48. See LR V, 12–5. Isidore of Seville (560–636), one of Tyconius’ followers, speaks also about the mystical meaning of numbers used in the Bible. See Liber numerorum 1, ed. J.Y. Guillaumin (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2005), 5. 62 The possible source of Tyconius’ succession line of the Roman Emperors could be Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (ca. 69–ca. 122) whose birthplace most scholars locate in Hippo Regius, a small north African town in Numidia. He is the author of De vita Caesarum – translated as The Life of the Caesares, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, or Lives of the Caesars. The work was written probably in Hadrian’s time as the collective biography of the Roman Empire’s first leaders: Julius Caesar, Augustus (27 BC–14 AD), Tiberius (14–37), Caligula, Claudius (41–54), Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius (18th April–20th December 69), Vespasian (69–79), Titus (79–81), and Domitian (81–96). See Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, trans. Catharine Edwards (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Francis Gumerlock, referring to Rev 17:10, notices that “some scholars believe that this passage holds a key to ascertaining the date of the Apocalypse; it is simply a matter of understanding which king or emperor was reigning at that time, corresponding to ‘one is.’ Despite the omission of Gaius Caligula and the error in the order of Nero and Galba, Tyconius put Nero in sixth place, the king referred to in 17:10 as ‘one is.’ Those who argue for a Neronic dating of the Apocalypse may view Tyconius as an early witness for their position.” Francis X. Gumerlock, “Review of Roger Gryson, Tyconii Afri Expositio Apocalypseos,” WTJ 74:2 (Fall 2012): 470. See also Gumerlock’s Revelation and the First Century: Preterist Interpretations of the Apocalypse in Early Christianity (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2012), 100–1 where in chapter twelve he examines several different interpretations of the expression “the one who is” in Rev 17 as a reference to Nero. 60 61

110

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

septimus Otho, de quo dixit nondum venit, et cum venerit, modicum eum oportet manere, id est in figuram revelati antichristi; nam regnavit menses tres et dies sex.63 the seventh Otho, about whom he said: He has not yet come, and when he comes, it is necessary that he remains a little while (Rev 17:10), that is, in a figure of the revealed Antichrist; for he [Otho] reigned for three months and six days.

The number seven, on which Tyconius focuses here, symbolises the fullness of time of the earthly empires, whose final period will belong to the kingdom of the Antichrist that has not yet been revealed. Tyconius does not consider the Emperor Otho to be an incarnation of the Antichrist, but as one element of this figure. His last place and the short time of his reign should not be understood literally, but as a description of the final persecution at the end of the age. This time is further specified by Tyconius in his comment on Rev 20:1–3 as the “time of the Antichrist” (tempore antichristi), mentioned before.64 The eschatological reference to time in the expression “after these things” (cf. Rev 20:3), according to the Rule On Recapitulation, also has reference to the present time. “The dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan” who was bound “for a thousand years” (Rev 20:2) will be especially active in the “time of the Antichrist” through the “Man of sin.” This will be the time of the anti-Christian attitude. For Tyconius, the past, present and future are the time of the church; therefore, the current events of the African church are at the same time a prophecy of similar future events in other parts of the world. For Tyconius, a thousand years is not a literal designation of time. It is just a number that represents the entire time of the church between the two advents of Christ. The time of the final persecution will expose the mystery of evil (cf. 2 Thess 2:7a) which the false brothers construct in the church. This moment of truth will separate (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) the good and evil forever.65 Tyconius seems to understand the entire Scripture as the canonical text that allows him to create his own eschatology out of various NT eschatological systems. He binds the Johannine tradition of the “Antichrist” with the tradition of the “Man of sin” presented in 2 Thessalonians 2. He does not follow previous exegetes who identified the Antichrist with political figures, rather, he views the Antichrist as a spiritually evil part of the body of the church, which is not limited either to a geographical area or to a historical time. Every Christian, by evil moral conduct, can become a part of that reality. 1.3 Filius exterminii Another name of the “Man of Lawlessness” in 2  Thess 2:3c is ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας (the “Son of Destruction”). This phrase is also a Semitic expression

EA VI, 116–9. See EA VII, 181–4. 65 See LR VII, 4.3; III, 29; IV, 17, 19.1; VI, 3.1; VII, 18.2. 63 64

1. Members of the Lord’s Body

111

in which a generic personal noun (ὁ υἱὸς) followed by an adjectival genitive (τῆς ἀπωλείας) designates the essential condition or quality of this figure:66 Μή τις ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατήσῃ κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον. ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, Let no one deceive you in any way; because [that day will not come] unless the apostasy comes first and the Man of Lawlessness, the Son of Destruction, is revealed.

The adjectival genitive ἀπωλεία can have either a transitive or an intransitive sense. In the first case, this figure causes destruction, and in the second case he experiences destruction.67 The apostasy of the “Man of Lawlessness” (v. 3a), his usurpation of the seat of God (v. 4b), and his collaboration with Satan (v. 9) indicate that the first option is more probable.68 But, on the other hand, the future destruction of this end-time enemy and his followers are described in vv. 8 and 10. Nicklas notes that there is no need to resolve which function of the genitive is intended by the author at this point. It is clear enough that this figure is associated with doom, destruction and annihilation, and his evil activity determines his fate.69 Tyconius chooses the translation of ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας in the Liber Regularum as filius exterminii70 (the “Son of Destruction”) and in the Expositio Apocalypseos as filius perditionis71 (the “Son of Perdition”). In each of his works, the exegete directly uses this title only once, but he frequently develops both the theme of destruction that the enemy body spreads in the church, and the theme of eternal perdition that awaits the enemies of Christ. That is why we shall consider this phrase and this theme as a minor motif which enriches our understanding of the dangerous nature of the “Man of sin.” A few important examples which we discuss here confirm that Tyconius has 2 Thess 2:3c in mind. In the Liber Regularum, our African exegete compares the church to the spiritual and holy temple of God, and connects this notion with Jesus’ prophecy about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. This rhetorical mechanism suggests that the entire temple is not holy and one part of it deserves to be annihilated. Tyconius explains it by introducing his fundamental concept of the bipartite body of the church, which contains in itself true and false members: Corpus itaque in capite suo filius est Dei, et Deus in corpore suo filius est hominis, qui cotidie nascendo venit et crescit in templum sanctum Dei. Templum enim bipertitum est, cuius pars altera quamvis lapidibus magnis extruatur, destruitur, neque in eo lapis super lapidem relinquetur. Istius nobis iugis adventus cavendus est, donec de medio eius discedat ecclesia.72 See Blass and Debrunner, A Greek Grammar, §162. See Weima, 1–2 Thessalonians, 514. 68 See Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 245. 69 See Nicklas, Der zweite Thessalonicherbrief, 132. 70 LR III, 295. 71 EA II, 3511–12. 72 LR I, 133–9. 66 67

112

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

Accordingly, the body in its head is the son of God and God in his body is the Son of Man, who daily comes to be born and grows into the holy temple of God (cf. Eph 2:21). For the temple is bipartite; and its other part, although it is being constructed with great blocks of stone, will be destroyed and not one stone will be left upon another (Matt 24:2). Against the continuous coming of that temple we must remain on guard until the church departs (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) from the midst (2 Thess 2:7c) of it.

As we have learned earlier, the body of Christians, though one, has been divided in Tyconius’ historical context into Donatists and Caecilianists. The confusion in claiming who is true and who is false does not have a great significance for Tyconius, as he himself has been proven wrong by his fellow party. Rather, he puts forward the conviction that each individual member of the church should examine his own righteousness and holiness in front of God and other Christian brothers. Falsehood or truth can grow in the temple of each human being, and constant watchfulness over one’s own will can help to keep destroying the inner evil. The personal dimension of this spiritual tension is obviously expressed in the community of believers where either evil or good may be multiplied and spread. In this way, either the body of Christ or the body of the Antichrist can grow in the church. Tyconius knows that a believer’s striving for the Revelation of the truth will be fully satisfied only when the right part of the temple is separated from its left part, which will be eternally destroyed. For Tyconius, the bipartite condition of the church is a mystery through which one should interpret all the passages of Scripture: “And so throughout all the Scriptures this must be perceived in a mystery, as where God says that Israel is about to perish deservedly, or that its inheritance is detestable.”73 Tyconius’ vision of the church as the bipartite reality is explained by means of numerous biblical images, such as “the one body of Abraham’s line” that “both grows and flourishes and goes to ruin,”74 or places like Jerusalem, Egypt, Nineveh, Sor or Tyre whose one part will be destroyed.75 The exegete underlines that everything that is presented in particular (species),“ will also happen LR II, 131–3: “Hoc itaque mysterio accipiendum est per omnes Scripturas sicubi Deus dicit ad merita Israhel periturum aut hereditatem suam execrabilem.” 74 LR II, 1417–19: “Ita Dominus in omnibus Scripturis unum corpus seminis Abrahae in omnibus crescere et florere atque perire testatur.” (“Thus, the Lord attests in all Scriptures that the one body of the seed of Abraham increases in all things and flourishes but also perishes”). 75 Cf. LR II, 922–25.1–3: “Iterum aperte Deus uni corpori firmitatem et interitum promittit dicens: Hierusalem civitas dives, tabernacula quae non commovebuntur, neque agitabuntur pali tabernaculi tui in aeternum tempus, neque funes eius rumpentur. Et adiecit: Rupti sunt funes tui quia non valuit arbor navis tuae, inclinaverunt vela tua et non tollet signum donec tradatur in perditionem.” (“And again, God clearly promises health and sickness to the one body, saying: Jerusalem, city of splendor, whose tents will not be displaced, neither will your reed tabernacles ever be moved, nor will its ropes be broken [Isa 33:20]. And he adds: Your ropes have been broken because the mast of your ship was no good, your sails stretched out and the insignia will not rise until it is handed over to perdition [cf. Isa 33:23]”). See also IV, 13.28–10.16–17, 14.221–26.1–6, 14.47–12, 15.125–28. 73

1. Members of the Lord’s Body

113

in general at the last day.”76 The biblical events, understood in our modern idea as ‘what had already happened,’ point to the eschatological reality. The exegete underlines, however, that “these are all spiritual matters,”77 and therefore they must be explained in spiritual terms. In his discussion of the function of the law, Tyconius indicates that, during the time of the church, there is a possibility of abandoning evil and escaping from the punishment. The law was given only to the “impious and to sinners” to help them to mature in the decision of choosing grace.78 It is a matter of free will, and not of predestination, as if God’s whim determines who is to be punished and who is to be rewarded.79 This is anthropologically interesting, because Tyconius stresses that the two bodies are dynamic enough that one can change sides. He certainly has his addressees in mind who are still in danger and for whom there is still hope. For Tyconius, the “Son of Destruction” is represented in the Scripture by various negative groups that oppose Christ and hope to destroy his design for salvation. In the following quotation, the plural forms “they” describe that single figure: inimici crucis Christi, negantes Christum in carne dum eius membra oderunt, corpus peccati, filius exterminii in mysterium facinoris, qui veniunt secundum operationem Satanae in omni virtute, signis et prodigiis falsitatis, spiritalia nequitiae in caelestibus, quos Dominus Christus quem in carne persecuntur interficiet spiritu oris sui et destruet manifestatione adventus sui.80 enemies of Christ’s cross (Phil 3:18), denying that Christ came in the flesh (1 John 2:22; 4:3) while they hated his members, the body of sin (cf. 2 Thess 2:3c), the Son of Destruction (2 Thess 2:3c) in the mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7a), they come by Satan’s work with all power and with false signs and wonders (2 Thess 2:9); they are the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavens (Eph 6:12), whom the Lord Christ, whom they persecuted in the flesh, will kill with the breath of his mouth and destroy when he comes in open manifestation (2 Thess 2:8).

76 LR IV, 14.24: “Fiet autem et generaliter novissimo die.” (“However, it will happen also generally on the last day”). 77 LR IV, 15.49–10: “Etsi aliqua horum videntur et iam perspicue fieri, tamen omnia spiritalia sunt.” (“Even if some of these things are clearly seen to have happened already, nevertheless, all things are spiritual”). 78 LR III, 20.110–12: “Non est data conditio, id est lex, nisi impiis et peccatoribus, ut aut ad gratiam confugiant aut iustius puniantur si irritam fecerint.” (“There was no condition given, that is, law, except for the impious and sinners, in order that either they might flee to grace or they might be punished more justly if they should make an error”). 79 Cf. LR III, 2327–28.1–3: “Hoc enim dictum: Si me audisses Israhel, commemoratio est iustitiae Dei et confirmatio promissionum, ne quis putaret non libero arbitrio sed dispositione Dei quosdam factos ad mortem quosdam vero ad vitam.” (“For this statement: If Israel had heard me, is a commemoration of the righteousness of God and a fashioning of the promises, lest anyone should think that it is not by free will but by the disposition of God that some are made for death while some are made for life”). 80 LR III, 294–10.

114

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

In the above-cited passage, we notice the references to the negation of Christ’s incarnation and to the hatred of his members. Both elements remind us of the figure of the Antichrist and his nature. This is followed by the concept of the body of sin, which, in other words, is the “Man of sin,” and then the explicit allusion to 2 Thess 2:3c, namely to the “Son of Destruction.” Tyconius binds all these elements with 2 Thess 2:7.9 and Eph 6:12 in order to emphasise the diabolic roots of the false members of the church who persecute their fellow Christians. In the following analysis, we shall notice several other examples in which Tyconius often clusters Eph 6:12 with 2 Thess 2:7, or other passages from 2 Thessalonians 2. The quotation ends with 2 Thess 2:8 that announces the destruction of Christ’s persecutors at the fulfilment of God’s plans. It gradually becomes more evident that the true church, represented in the person of the Lord Christ, also has to play a punitive role. All those within the church who do not come back to life from their spiritual death will perish for eternity.81 The church, as Tyconius indicates in his interpretation of Zech 14:11–16, will spiritually torture and put to death those who remain in and form the body of the enemy body.82 The false brothers will “drink God’s wrath in the city of God,” that is, in the church, where they “are struck down” (cf. Jer 25:15–29).83 These events, though they have their own historical time in the Scriptures, are applicable both to the present and the future situation of the church. For example, when Tyconius comments on the phrase: “on that day Lot left Sodom, it rained fire from heaven and destroyed them all” (Luke 17:29–30), he thinks of the eschatological day when the church leaves the enemy body, as well as the present day when the false brothers constantly destroy themselves spiritually and are tortured by the truth of the real church.84 The theme of the destruction of the devil’s body is extensively discussed by Tyconius in his last Rule. At this point, it becomes clear that whatever applies to the devil’s body refers also to its head, because “the devil is not separated 81 Cf. LR IV, 15.412–16: “Quod autem dixit: Relinquentur homines pauci – salvo utique statu – eorum qui peribunt, pauci relinquuntur ex eis quos spiritaliter mortuos dicit, qui per recordationem vixerint, quos Ecclesia non interfecerit, sicut multis in locis legimus.” (“Because, however, he said: Few men will be left [Isa 24:6] – whether saved or existing – of those who will be destroyed, few will be left of those whom he calls spiritually dead, who will have lived through remembrance, those whom the church will not have destroyed, just as we read in many places”). 82 Cf. LR IV, 15.56–9: “Et in Zacharia legimus illos remanere quos Ecclesia non occiderit, quod ad se convertantur; ceteros vero spiritaliter cruciatibus interficere, siquidem stantibus oculos eruat, et carnes tabescere faciat.” (“And in Zechariah we read that those remain whom the church will not have slain, because they are converted to him; but the others will be murdered spiritually by torments, if, indeed, he plucks out the eyes of those standing and causes their flesh to waste away” [cf. Zech 14:11–13]). 83 LR IV, 20.124–25: “Item omnes gentes quae sub caelo sunt in civitate Dei iram Dei bibere et illic percuti Hieremias testatur.” 84 See LR VI, 27–10.

1. Members of the Lord’s Body

115

from his man,”85 who, as we have examined above, is the “Man of sin” (homo peccati), the “Son of Destruction.” In order to better explain this theme, Tyconius focuses on two biblical figures: the king of Babylon and the prince of Tyre, who represent the whole enemy body in its union with the devil. The destructive attitude of the king of Babylon made “the earth tremble” and “the whole world a desert.” He “destroyed the cities” and “brought the Lord’s land to ruin” (cf. Isa 14:12–21). The spatial references to “the whole world,” “the cities,” and “the Lord’s land” are descriptions of the church. These verses clearly show how devastating the spiritual influence of evil forces can be to the community of believers. Similarly, the prince of Tyre, who symbolises the “Man of sin,” attempts to be equal to God in his own pride, not realising that this ambition is illusory. Although temporarily provided with a destructive power, the “Man of sin” will eventually have to accept the truth that he is just “a man (homo) and not God” and he will perish (cf. Ezek 28:2–19). Tyconius comes back to this text at the end of the Liber Regularum, with what may seem like an abrupt ending.86 But, in fact, the words from the prophet Ezekiel: “You were made for destruction and you will cease to be” (28:19)87 are a fitting conclusion for the theme of the “Son of Destruction.” Only those who belong to this disabled body will be saddened at the moment of its total annihilation.88 Tyconius shows that the possibility of perdition or salvation is equally valid for all, because in both cases, the liberated human decision plays a crucial role. The theme of destruction caused by the enemy body and its eventual perdition is also amply present in the Expositio Apocalypseos. Tyconius’ interpretation of the biblical texts, including the book of Revelation, is church-oriented. As we have learned, the church is a bipartite reality, composed of two spiritual parties, good and evil, which coexist together until the day of the final separation (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b). The evil part, which now is warned of the impending judgment and called to conversion, constitutes the enemy body labelled as the LR VII, 6.23–4: “Diabolus ab homine suo non separatur.” Some scholars believe that the original ending is missing. See Tyconius, Le Livre des Règles (SC 488.114–15); Babcock, The Book of Rules, xl. In my opinion, it is doubtful that Tyconius wrote much beyond this point. The ending fits well with the overall theme of the seventh Rule solemnly announcing the perdition of the enemy body. See also Bright, Book of Rules, 114–15. Douglas Leslie Anderson states that “Tyconius may have considered this the most appropriate way to conclude his discussion about the devil: an abrupt and humiliating ending for one who is soon to come to an ignominious end,” The Book of Rules of Tyconius: An Introduction and Translation with Commentary (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1980), 234. 87 LR VII, 195, “Perditio facta es, et non eris in aeternum.” 88 Cf. LR VII, 191–4, “Et omnes qui te noverunt inter nationes contristabuntur super te. Cum enim Dominus percutit aut detegit malos, contristantur qui eorum auxilio fulciri solent, corporis sui parte debilitata.” (“And all who knew you among the nations will be saddened over you [Ezek 28:19]; for when the Lord slays or exposes the evil ones, they will be saddened who are accustomed to having been supported by their assistance, by the part of his body which was disabled”). 85 86

116

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

“Man of sin,” the “Antichrist,” or the “Son of Destruction.” The construction of this literary world is an expression of Tyconius’ pastoral care. His genuine and disinterested criticism of both the Donatists and the Caecilianists shows the spiritual significance of this schism. His goal is to alert the members of the devil’s body that their end may be tragic if they do not begin now to separate spiritually from the left side of the church. We notice such logic, for example, in Tyconius’ interpretation of the threatening words and rebukes addressed to the seven churches in Revelation 2–3. He understands them both, literally, as the divine reprimand to the condition of the North African church and spiritually, as the admonition to repentance.89 Particularly interesting is Tyconius’ analysis of the four horses of Revelation 6 in light of the theme of perdition. The white horse that appears in the opening of the first seal (Rev 6:1–2) portrays the beginning of the true church and Christ’s hidden presence in her.90 The breaking of the second seal (Rev 6:3–4) reveals the red horse that represents “the people of the left,” that is, the pagans who are outside the church.91 At the opening of the third seal (Rev 6:5–6) emerges the black horse that symbolises the false brothers.92 The pagans and false brothers constitute the people of the devil and they fight against the true church that forms the people of God: ecclesia vocata est tertia pars, et falsi fratres altera tertia, et gentilitas tertia. Antequam autem ubique homo peccati reveletur et publice manifestetur filius perditionis, iam ex parte revelatus est, et ubi tres partes videbantur, iam quarta manifestata est. Non enim omnem malum vomet ecclesia, sed aliquos ad ostendendum orbi genus novissimae persecutionis … In illis ergo locis in quibus duae partes videntur, id est ecclesia et gentilitas, apud aliquos tres partes sunt, apud nos autem quattuor, id est ecclesia gentilitas schisma et falsi fratres.93 the church was called a third part (Zech 13:8; Rev 8:12), and the false brothers another third, and the heathen world a third. Moreover, before the Man of sin is revealed (2 Thess 2:3c) everywhere and the Son of Perdition is manifested publicly (2 Thess 2:3c), he has already been revealed from [one] part; and where three parts were seen, now a fourth is manifested. For the church will not spew out every evil person (cf. Rev 3:16), but [only] some, for the purpose of showing to the world what the last persecution will be like … Therefore, in those regions in which two parts are seen, that is, the church and the heathen world, among

See EA I, 14–15, 19, 235–12–241–4, 275–72, 3414–22–351–4, 401–11, 456–19–47. Cf. EA II, 323: “Equus ecclesia est, sessor eius Christus.” (“The horse is the church, its rider Christ”). 91 Cf. EA II, 335–7: “Contra victricem vincentemque ecclesiam exiit equus russeus, id est populus sinister, ex sessore suo diabolo sanguinolentus.” (“A red horse, that is, the people of the left, covered in the blood of its rider, the devil, went out against the victorious and overcoming church”). 92 Cf. EA II, 347–9: “Equus niger falsorum caterva est fratrum, qui, dum se fingunt iustitiae libram tenere, socios laedunt per opera tenebrarum.” (“The black horse is the crowd of false brothers, who, while they think they are holding a scale of justice, harm their companions through works of darkness” [Rom 13:12]). 93 EA II, 359–19. 89 90

1. Members of the Lord’s Body

117

some there are three parts, but among us four, that is, the church, the heathen world, those in schism, and false brothers.

Tyconius usually divides humanity into three parts: the true church (“a third part” or the “white horse”), the pagan world (“a third” or the “red horse”) and the false brothers (“another third” or the “black horse”). Sometimes, however, he distinguishes a fourth part. The identity of this part is explained by the breaking of the fourth seal (Rev 6:7–8) and the Revelation of the “pale horse” that, for Tyconius, denotes the dead people,94 that is, the schismatics of the Caecilianist church.95 The “Son of Perdition,” who is present in the church in the form of the false brothers, extends his activity through the schismatics. The first group, being inside the church, performs the hidden acts of hypocrisy through the works of darkness, and the second group is openly hypocritical, because “although spiritually they are outside, nevertheless they seem to be active inside.”96 Though schismatics are under the power of the devil, it seems that Tyconius recognises that not all of them will perish.97 This would again suggest that he does not assume a judgmental attitude regarding the ecclesiastical conflict of his time, but rather brings his considerations to the spiritual level, which touches every single believer within the whole time of the church. Tyconius stresses that, at the end, the part that composes the “Son of Perdition” is going to be destroyed when God will “free one but destroy two of the three parts.”98 Meantime, the “Son of Perdition” has time to bring others to destruction in his corrupted activity. While commenting on Rev 8:9, Tyconius Cf. EA II, 3526–27: “In hanc ergo quartam partem data potestas est diabolo sedenti super equum pallidum, qui est populus mortuus.” (“Therefore, against this fourth part, power was given to the devil sitting upon a pale horse, which is dead people”). 95 See Hoover, The Donatist Church, 176–77. 96 EA II, 3515–16: “Licet spiritaliter foris sint, tamen intus operari videntur.” Cf. 3540–42: “in nigro, qui libram ostentat et laedit, hypocrisin, quae est opera tenebrarum, in altero revelatam hypocrisin, quae est abominatio vastationis.” (“in the black one, which holds a scale and causes harm, he described hypocrisy, which is works of darkness [Rom 13:12]. In the other he described open hypocrisy which is the abomination of desolation [Matt 24:15]”). 97 Cf. EA II, 3529–31: “quod aliquos ex illis sine recordatione defunctos in mortem ex ipsa quarta deiecerit” (“he will have torn away into death some of them from the fourth part itself, who are as those deceased without remembrance”); 361–3: “Quinto autem signo inducit animas tam in quarta parte quam in toto mundo occisorum secundum deum postulare vindictam.” (“Moreover, in the fifth seal he shows that the souls, both in the fourth part as well as in the whole world, of those slain for God, pray for vindication”). 98 Cf. EA III, 105–10: “Partem tertiam combustioni traditam gentiles dixit. Est et alia bonis mixta in falsis fratribus, et ecclesia tertia, quae contra geminum malum pugnat, sicut deus per Zachariam promittit pastores percutere et adhaerentes sibi in toto orbe, et eruere oves, et ex tribus partibus unam liberare, duas vero interire.” (“He called the heathen a third part handed over to fire. Also, there is another [third] of false brothers, who are mixed with the good. The [last] third is the church, which struggles against a twofold evil. This is as when God promised through Zechariah to strike the shepherds and those attached to them throughout the whole world, to scatter the sheep, and to free one but destroy two of the three parts”). 94

118

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

says: “therefore that third which died in the sea corrupted another third, which followed after it.”99 This means that the members of the true church can also lose their righteousness and turn against the Lord’s body. The teaching of the evil people and their bad example corrupts others. Tyconius again underlines this aspect of the contamination by evil in his comments on Rev 17:8–9 where he speaks about the beast from the abyss, which symbolises precisely “evil people” born “from the evil people.”100 In the time of the earthly church, the evil is allowed to multiply and though its nature is always destructive, it is going to perish. Revelation 18 describes the fall of the city of Babylon which, for Tyconius, represents the city of the devil spread everywhere in the world.101 He interprets the destruction of the city and the smoke ascending above it as the “smoke of approaching hell” (cf. Rev 18:9).102 Similarly, as in the Liber Regularum, so also in the Expositio Apocalypseos, Tyconius emphasises the punitive function of the true church. Commenting on Rev 19:18.21, he states twice that the church annihilates her enemies spiritually. The same concept is repeated in his interpretation of Rev 20:9, where the fire that comes from heaven symbolises the fire from the church that devours her adversaries.103 These are only a few among many examples in both works of Tyconius which allow us to notice the double role of the minor motif Filius exterminii in his exegesis. On the one hand, this figure is allowed to exercise a certain power over the true members of the church, by tempting them, through persecution, to abandon the truth, while on the other hand, he keeps destroying even those who compose his own body. He can, therefore, be classified as the “Son of Destruction.” The end that is expected for him, as the result of his actions, is perdition, and hence, he is also the “Son of Perdition.” These two aspects characterise the activity and the end of the “Man of sin.” The reception of this 99 EA III, 141–3: “Illa igitur tertia quae in mari mortua est, aliam tertiam corrupit succedentem sibi.” 100 EA VI, 86–7: “id est ex populo malo nascitur populus malus, ut possit dici bestia ex bestia aut abyssus ex abysso.” (“that is, evil people are born from evil people, so that it can be said that a beast [is born] from a beast, or an abyss from an abyss”). 101 Cf. EA VI, 2211–13: “Nulla est civitas quae omnem animam immundam capiat, nisi civitas diaboli, in qua omnis immunditia per orbem commoratur.” (“There is no city that can capture every unclean spirit, except the city of the devil, in which every unclean thing throughout the world dwells”). 102 Cf. EA VI, 292–4: “Quid enim aliud est grassatio ista mundi et attritio, nisi fumus instantis gehennae?” (“For what else is that disorder of the world and its crumbling, but the smoke of approaching hell?”). 103 Cf. EA VII, 95: “Hos omnes spiritaliter comedit ecclesia.” (“The church consumes all these spiritually”); 125–6: “Omni tempore comedit ecclesia carnes inimicorum suorum.” (“In every time the church consumes the flesh of her enemies.”); 252–3: “Hic est ignis qui exiit ex ore testium et comedit inimicos eorum.” (“This is the fire that came out from the mouth of the witnesses and consumed their enemies”).

1. Members of the Lord’s Body

119

minor motif is an expression of Tyconius’ pastoral care to the Christians of his time. Those among them who are false brothers are warned before their tragic end, and those who are true brothers are exhorted to remain watchful in the time of trials. Surprisingly, Tyconius in the Liber Regularum does not use 2 Thess 2:10, where it is explicitly said that those who follow the Lawless one are doomed to destruction for not accepting the love of truth. Jean-Marc Vercruysse understands this choice as Tyconius’ strategy to avoid verses which directly speak of condemnation and rather focus on those which call for repentance.104 This assumption does not seem to be convincing because the entire Liber Regularum is filled with biblical texts that are announcing the perdition of hypocrites. Moreover, we do find 2 Thess 2:10a in the Expositio Apocalypseos, combined with 2 Thess 2:9 which speaks explicitly about the perdition of the body of the devil: Sic apostolus de diaboli corpore loquens: Cuis est, inquit, adventus secundum operationem Satanae in omni virtute et signis et prodigiis mendacii his qui pereunt.105 In the same way the Apostle, speaking about the body of the devil, says: His coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders (2 Thess 2:9) for those who are perishing (2 Thess 2:10a).

In Tyconius’ pedagogical understanding of eschatology, perishing is not merely a simple event that will take place in the future, but a process that has already begun, which can only be interrupted by departing from the body of the devil, and it reaches its fulfilment at the final separation of evil and good (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b). The minimum attention that Tyconius gives to 2 Thess 2:10 could be motivated by his main focus on the present reality of the church and the spiritual mechanisms that take place in her. The omission of v. 10b, which speaks about salvation,106 or rather its lack, touches on the soteriological aspect which Tyconius somehow avoids discussing explicitly. The future reality once determined cannot be changed. The exegete has a tendency to ‘de-eschatologize’ the time of the church in order to teach his readers about a relationship with the Spirit, who speaks through the Scripture to those who open themselves to the truth of Christ. 1.4 Ostendens se quod ipse est Deus The obstinate character of the “Man of Lawlessness,” the “Son of Destruction,” is further defined by the author of 2 Thessalonians 2 in a long participial clause in verse 4a:

See Tyconius, Le Livre des Règles (SC 488.73 n. 1). EA IV, 281–4. 106 ἀνθ᾽ ὧν τὴν ἀγάπην τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἐδέξαντο εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι αὐτούς. (“because they did not accept the love of truth and so be saved”). 104 105

120

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός. The one setting himself against and exalting himself above all what is called god or an object of veneration, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming that he himself is God.

This eschatological enemy opposes God and, in his arrogance, desires to replace the true God or even false gods in order to become the object of human devotion.107 Verse 4b makes his intention clearer: he wants to be the supreme God. A similar background to this description of the “Man of Lawlessness” is found in Daniel’s prophecy about a future king of the north who “will exalt and magnify himself above every god” (Dan 11:36).108 The personal pronoun “he” (αὐτóν) is emphatic: “it is placed prominently forward to mark the individualising arrogance of this impious intruder.”109 The intransitive form of the verb καθίσαι here indicates that he takes God’s seat in the temple aggressively.110 The noun ναός used in the text does not speak about the entire temple in general, which would have been denoted by the noun ἱερόν, but about the inner, most holy court of the temple, reserved only for God. The articles before the nouns ναός and θεός would suggest the temple of Jerusalem.111 Some scholars claim, however, that the author of 2 Thessalonians 2 is speaking about a Some scholars discuss whether the text speaks about the actual (ὥστε + indicative) or intended (ὥστε + infinitive) result. This distinction, however, is no longer a concern of the later Koine Greek as it was in Classical Greek. See Blass and Debrunner, A Greek Grammar, §391.3; James E. Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), 256–57, Maarten J.J. Menken, 2 Thessalonians, NTR (London: Routledge, 1994), 107; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 593, n. 14. 108 Most exegetes associate this king with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who set up an altar to the pagan god Zeus in the holy of holies, and in this way, desecrated the Jerusalem temple. See Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930), 111. The sanctity of the temple was also violated by the Roman general Pompey in 63 B.C. See Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities 14, trans. William Whiston (London: Wordsworth, 2006) and the emperor Caligula, who in A.D. 40 ordered that he be worshipped as a god and attempted to erect his statue in the Jerusalem temple. See ibid., 18. 109 Charles J. Ellicott, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians: With a Critical and Grammatical Commentary, and a Revised Translation, 4th ed. (London: Longmans, 1880), 120. See also Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 420. 110 See Walter Bauer et al., BDAG, 492.3, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). 111 Herman N. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 520–21: “With the temple certainly the temple at Jerusalem is in the first instance to be thought of. One must not, however, fail to appreciate the apocalyptic character of the delineation. That which is still hidden, which as future event is still incapable of description, is denoted with the help of available notions borrowed from the present. To sit in the temple is a divine attribute, the arrogating to oneself of divine honour. No conclusions are to be drawn from that for the time and place in which the man of sin will make his appearance.” 107

1. Members of the Lord’s Body

121

heavenly temple112 or referring to the church.113 There is also a proposal to understand the mention of the temple as a prophecy of the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple at some time in the future.114 Many scholars see it simply as a metaphorical allusion to the sanctuary, which would say something more about the nature of the “Man of Lawlessness” rather than about the exact location.115 The pomposity of the “Man of Lawlessness” is even intensified by the verb ἀποδείκνυμι, which is normally used as a technical term for the appointing of a person to a particular office for public recognition.116 The sacrilegious character of such conduct is underscored in the statement “proclaiming himself that he is God.” Tyconius refers to 2 Thess 2:4 once in the Liber Regularum and twice in the Expositio Apocalypseos. Following his own exegetical line, he also understands this verse in the ecclesiastical context. The enemy body hidden in the church attempts to imitate the true body of Christ117 and, in this way, continues to express the ceaseless ambition of the devil to be like God. In order to elaborate this minor motif, Tyconius begins with an exegesis of Matt 26:64, understanding the figure of the “Son of Man,” in light of synecdoche, as the multitude of men who form the church.118 The members of the church, as we have learned earlier, can be referred to with a singular expres-

112 See William Neil, The Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, MNTC (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1950), 164; Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 257; Gaventa, First and Second Thessalonians, 112. 113 See Charles H. Giblin, The Threat to Faith: An Exegetical and Theological Reexamination of 2 Thessalonians 2, AnBib 31 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), 76–80; Gregory K. Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, NTCS (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 207–11. Cf. Frederick F. Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, WBC (Waco: Word Books, 1982), 169; Witherington III, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 220, n. 68. 114 See Robert L. Thomas, “1–2 Thessalonians,” ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, EBC 11 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 322. 115 See Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 169; Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 191–92; Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 284; Gary S. Shogren, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 284–85. 116 See Bauer, BDAG, 108.1. 117 Cf. LR I, 911.1–4: “Unde Dominus cum de signo adventus sui interrogaretur, de illo adventu suo coepit disputare qui ab inimico corpore signis et prodigiis imitari potest … multi enim venient in nomine meo, id est in nomine corporis mei.” (“Wherefore, when the Lord was asked concerning the sign of his coming, he, who can be imitated by an enemy body with signs and prodigies … for many will come in my name [Matt 24:4] that is, in the name of my body”). 118 Cf. LR I, 108–9: “Nec illud erit absurdum quod ex uno totum corpus volumus intellegi, ut filium hominis ecclesiam.” (“Thus, it will not be absurd that we wish the whole body to be understood from one, that we wish the Son of Man to be understood as the church”).

122

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

sion, as for example: wife, sister, holy virgin, man.119 This way of thinking and also the reasoning of the first Rule, where the references to Christ are to be applied to his body, serve as a key for understanding 2 Thess 2:4, through which Tyconius explains how Christ is present in his church: quoniam ecclesia, id est filii Dei redacti in unum corpus, dicti sunt filius Dei, dicti unus homo, dicti etiam Deus sicut per Apostolum: Super omnem qui dicitur Deus aut quod colitur. Qui dicitur Deus, ecclesia est, quod autem colitur, Deus summus est, ut in templum Dei sedeat ostendens se quod ipse est Deus, id est quod ipse sit ecclesia. Quale si diceret: In templum Dei sedeat ostendens se quod ipse sit Dei templum, aut: In Deum sedeat ostendens se quod ipse sit Deus.120 because the church, that is, the sons of God gathered into one body, are called the Son of God, are called one man, are even called God, just as in the apostle: Who is called God above everything that is or what is worshipped (2 Thess 2:4a). Who is called God is the church, but what is worshipped is the highest God, so that in the temple of God he may sit proclaiming himself that he is God (2 Thess 2:4b), that is, that he is the church. If it were to say, He will sit in the temple of God proclaiming himself, it would mean that he is the temple of God, or: he sits in God proclaiming himself that he is God.

The subject of the first sentence, the “church” (ecclesia) in the singular form, is accompanied by the verb “are” (sunt) in the plural form, in reference to the “sons of God” (filii Dei). They constitute one body of the church and are identified by various synonyms: “what is called God,” the “temple of God,” the “Son of God,” “one man,” or “God.” This understanding of the “Man of sin” helps us to comprehend the way Tyconius interprets this verse. Tyconius’ reading “in templum Dei sedeat” (for or as the temple of God) instead of “in templo Dei sedeat” (in the temple of God) attested in text Type D of VL,121 emphasises that the “Man of sin” considers himself to be the church or the temple of God. For the background to this interpretation, Tyconius may have thought of the Emperor Constantine, who at a certain time during his reign was considered as God’s Vicar122 or the Caecilianist church itself whom he patronised. Like everything in Tyconius’ exegesis, this event initiated by the “Man of sin” is also spiritual and does not refer to any physical reconstruction of the temple of Jerusalem, as some of his predecessors thought.123 The exegete wants to emphasise that only Christ has the right to “sit in the temple of God” and “call himself God,” (2 Thess 2:4) that is, the church. The effort of the “Man of sin” to become the true church is allowed by Christ in view of the fulfilment of God’s plans, but it does not mean that Christ ceased to be the church.

See LR I, 13; IV, 9.1; V, 8.2; VII, 5.1. See also Eugenio Romero-Pose, “Ecclesia in Filio hominis (Exégesis ticoniana al Apoc. 1,13–16),” Burgense 25 (1984): 43–82. 120 LR I, 109–14.1–4. 121 See VL, vol. 25, 329–30. See also Augustine, De civitate Dei 20.19.2 (CCL 48.731). 122 See Eusebius Pamphilius, De laudibus Constantini 7.13 (PG 20.1557). 123 See, for example, Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus haereses 5.25.2 (SC 153.312); Hippolyte, Commentarii in Danielem 4.49 (GCS 1.312–13). 119

1. Members of the Lord’s Body

123

The pride and arrogance of the devil’s body is further analysed by Tyconius in the seventh Rule with the help of the two prophetic texts mentioned above, Isa 14:12–21 and Ezek 28:2–19, which are particularly echoed in 2 Thess 2:4.124 The king of Babylon, described in the book of the prophet Isaiah, represents all the evil rulers and all the people125 and in his pride he desires to be like God: “I will ascend to heaven, I will set my throne above the stars of God … I will be like the Most High.”126 The devil, as the head, and the people, who compose his body, are one. Tyconius notes that the devil himself is a reasonable being and knows that it is impossible “to set his throne in heaven and above the stars,”127 that is, in the church. He, therefore, inspires the members of his body to act with deception, reproducing, in fact, the sin of Adam and Eve (cf. Gen 3:5). In this context, Tyconius mentions the pride of Lucifer and his fall from heaven,128 and the arrogance of the elder brother Esau who in the end “will serve the younger.”129 Both of these figures symbolise the evil brothers who abused their gift of freedom by seeking to dominate the servants of God. Again, the Northern Africa context seems to be the background to Tyconius’ literary constructions. The warfare between two Christian parties over supremacy in the church and the pride of being better than the other or sitting higher than the other echoes 2 Thess 2:4. At this point of his analysis, the exegete introduces an important theme in this Rule concerning individual freedom and accountability for evil actions. For Tyconius, in the context of Isaiah 14, Lucifer refers to the Antichrist rather than Satan. The separation of Lucifer’s body, that is, evil Hippolyte used these OT texts in reference to the Antichrist, see De Christo et Antichristo 53 (BP 10.130–32) and Origen in reference to the devil, see De principiis 1.5.4–5 (SC 252.182–94); Philocalia 26.7 (SC 226.260). 125 Cf. LR VII, 214–16: “In rege Babylonis et omnes reges et omnis populus significatur, unum est enim corpus.” (“In the king of Babylon are signified both all the kings and all the people; for there is one body”). 126 Cf. LR VII, 27–8.1–2: “Tu autem dixisti in animo tuo: In caelum ascendam, super stellas Dei ponam sedem meam, sedebo in monte alto super montes altos in Aquilonem, ascendam super nubes, ero similis Altissimo.” (“However, you said in your mind: I will ascend to heaven, above the stars of God I will place my throne”). 127 Cf. LR VII, 3.118–22: “Tu autem dixisti in animo tuo: In caelum ascendam, super stellas Dei ponam sedem meam. Diabolus hoc sibi non promittit; non enim sperat renitendo posse in caelum ascendere, qui ne deiceretur resistere non valuit.” (“However, you said in your mind: I will ascend to heaven, above the stars of God I will place my throne [Isa 14:12–13]. The devil does not promise himself this; for he does not hope that by resisting he would be able to ascend to heaven who, lest he be cast down, was not strong enough to resist”). 128 Cf. LR VII, 3.37–8: “Cecidit de caelo lucifer: in omne corpus potest convenire.” (“Lucifer fell from heaven [Isa 14:12] can apply to the whole body”). 129 Cf. LR VII, 3.311–13: “sicut scriptum est: Maior serviet minori. Huic Esau, id est fratribus malis sic dicit Dominus per Abdiam prophetam.” (“just as it is written: The greater will serve the lesser [cf. Gen 25:23]. Thus, the Lord says through Obadiah the prophet to this Esau, that is, to the evil brothers” [see Obad 3:4]). Regarding the symbolism of Esau see also: III, 25–29; IV, 12, 19.2; VII, 4.1. 124

124

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

brothers, from heaven, which is symbolised by the church, has been voluntary. They have “fallen” from baptismal union with Christ. Lucifer’s decision was taken out of his ambition and presumption and should be understood as a sign of the irresponsible abuse of God’s gift. Tyconius wants to emphasise that the body, composed of individuals, becomes alive through the personal decisions of its members, who in their freedom decide to follow evil and contribute to the attempts of the enthronement of evil in the church. Commenting on Isa 14:13–14, Tyconius explains that the “high mountain” symbolises “the haughty people” and the “high mountains” are “haughty individuals, who together make up the mountain, that is, the body of the devil.”130 At the same time, the body of the Lord is called a mountain and “the individuals who compose the church are the mountains.”131 Tyconius’ play on the parallel between Christ and his body and Lucifer and his body, may confuse his readers. From the context, one can, however, deduce that the author underlines the importance of a human’s spiritual condition, which determines to which body one belongs. Tyconius’ further comments on Isa 14:14–17 indicate that the passage refers to the singular figure, “the man” who is the “whole body,” namely the “men of pride” (hominis superbi),132 who attempt to dethrone God (deitatis usurpet).133 Another figure commented upon by Tyconius that echoes 2 Thess 2:4 is the king of Tyre who was previously mentioned. His pride in proclaiming himself

130 Cf. LR VII, 4.119–20: “Mons altus populus est superbus; montes alti singuli quique superbi, qui adunati montem faciunt, id est corpus diaboli.” (“The high mountain is the haughty people; the high mountains are haughty individuals, who together make up the mountain, that is, the body of the devil”). 131 Cf. LR VII, 4.12–3: “Nam etsi corpus Domini id est Ecclesia mons dicitur, et singuli qui Ecclesiam faciunt montes.” (“This is so even if the body of the Lord, that is, the church, is called a mountain, the individuals who compose the church are the mountains”). The image of the mountain that characterises both the wicked and the saints was present already in the African tradition. See, for example, Pseudo-Cyprian, De duobus montibus Sina et Sion 3.1 (BP 25.148); Origen, In Ieremiam homiliae 12.12 (SC 238.40–44); Hilary of Poitiers, Commentarius in Matthaeum 17.7 (SC 258.67–68). 132 Cf. LR VII, 5.15–8: “Hominem enim totum corpus dicit tam in regibus quam in populis, cuius hominis superbi partem cum Deus percutit et ad inferos deicit dicimus: Hic est homo qui incitat terram, commovet reges, scilicet sanctos.” (“For he says that the man is the whole body, as among kings, so among people. When God strikes that part containing the haughty men and casts them into the depths, we say: Here is the man who shakes the earth, excites kings [Isa 14:16], undoubtedly the saints”). 133 Cf. LR VII, 5.38–12: “Parum est enim quod inimicus est; adhuc gestit et in subditum vindicare, sicut scriptum est: Omnes subditos vobis compungitis, dissimulans odisse Dominum inimicum et vindicatorem, quod per vindictam, quam soli sibi Deus exceptabit, aliquid deitatis usurpet.” (“For it is a small thing that he is an enemy; thus far, he desires even to avenge in subjection, just as it is written: You are goading all those subject to you [cf. Isa 58:3]; pretending that the Lord hated the enemy and the avenger [Ps 8:2], through vengeance, which God reserved for himself alone, he usurps something of divinity”).

1. Members of the Lord’s Body

125

as God characterises the desire and efforts of the opposing body.134 Tyconius quotes six times the words: “Your heart was exalted” (Ezek 28:2)135 and five times the statement: “You are a man and not a God” (Ezek 28:2).136 Both phrases describe the attitude of the “Man of sin” who “exalts himself … proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Thess 2:4). Through the repetition of these important passages, the exegete highlights the absurdity of the diabolic idea of making himself like God. Then, quoting four times the words: “you have given your heart as if it were the heart of God” (Ezek 28:2),137 Tyconius strongly points out that the decision to follow the disorder in the hierarchy and authority of creation is born in the freedom of the human heart. The exegete strengthens his argument by recalling two other important biblical examples. In the first one, from Matt 24:5, Tyconius connects the pretence of the king of Tyre in Ezekiel “I am God,” with the warning of Christ given to his disciples concerning those who will come in his name saying: “I am Christ,” in order to lead many away from God. This claim, “I am Christ, applies both to the man and to the devil who dwells in the heart of the sea, that is, in the heart of the people, just as God sits in the heart of his saints.”138 Tyconius exposes the fact that the devil hidden in a man is still called a man, but it is the enemy man, the man of the devil, meaning, the “Man of sin.”139 The second example, already briefly discussed, is the figure of Daniel (cf. Ezek 28:2–3) who illustrates the body of the true church. He is presented as the counterpart to the “Man of sin,” the enemy body who desires to be equal to God, but in fact does not understand the ways of salvation.140 Tyconius reminds his readers that the

Cf. LR VII, 84–7: “Per Ezechielem sic Deus increpat regem Tyri, id est omne corpus adversum: Quoniam exaltatum est cor tuum, et dixisti: Deus sum ego, habitationem Dei habitavi in corde maris.” (“Thus God, through Ezekiel, chides the king of Tyre, that is, the whole opposing body: Because your heart is exalted and you have said: I am God, I dwelled in the dwelling place of God in the heart of the sea” [Ezek 28:2]). 135 See LR VII, 85.12–13.10’–11’, 9.119, 116, 17.118. 136 See LR VII, 87.19–20, 9.24.8, 138. 137 Cf. LR VII, 87–8.14–15, 10.19, 12.116–17. 138 LR VII, 9.120–23: “Et in hominem convenit: Ego sum Christus, et in diabolum, qui in corde maris, id est populi, habitat, sicut Deus in corde sanctorum suorum sedet.” 139 Cf. LR VII, 9.24–7: “Et diabolus in homine homo dictus est, sicut Dominus dixit in Evangelio: Inimicus homo hoc fecit, et interpretatus est dicens: Qui ea seminat diabolus est. Homo diaboli Deus esse non potest.” (“And the devil in a man is called a man, just as the Lord said in the Gospel: An enemy man did this [Matt 13:28], and he interpreted saying: He who sowed these is the devil [Matt 13:39]. A man of the devil cannot be God”). 140 Cf. LR VII, 10.19–12: “Dedisti cor tuum tamquam cor Dei. Numquid sapientior es tu Danihele? In Danihele totum corpus est Ecclesiae, quia non potest esse homo peccati sapientior in negotiis vitae, sicut ille sapientior est in suo quam filli lucis.” (“You have given your heart as if it were the heart of God. Are you wiser than Daniel? [Ezek 28:2–3]. In Daniel, the whole body is the church’s, because the Man of sin [2 Thess 2:3c] cannot be wiser in the affairs of life, just as he is wiser among his own than the sons of light” [cf. Luke 16:8]). 134

126

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

actual throne, either of the devil or of God, is the human heart. The individual believer is free to choose whom he wants to serve and to whom to belong. In his Expositio Apocalypseos, Tyconius alludes explicitly to 2 Thess 2:4 while interpreting Rev 3:10. The message given to the church of ancient Philadelphia is the promise of the Lord’s protection from widespread suffering and trials. Tyconius utilises this verse in order to emphasise that the final and open apocalyptic struggle will take place in the whole church and not only in Africa, as the Donatists believed. Just as in the Liber Regularum, here also the exegete invokes the image of the “last king” (Dan 11:31.36–38) in order to speak about the Antichrist, the enemy body, whose goal is to introduce his own false church, namely “an abomination of desolation” (Matt 24:15) in place of the church – veluti Ecclesiam in loco Ecclesiae.141 John’s notion of the Antichrist and 2 Thess 2:4a, where the “Man of sin” “calls himself God” (qui se dicat deum), is here clustered with the “last king” of Dan 11:36–38 who exalts himself and magnifies himself above every god: Sicut enim in Africa factum est, ita oportet in toto mundo revelari antichristum et eodem modo ab ecclesia ubique superari, quo ab ea in parte superatus est ad ostendendum novissimi certaminis modum. Non enim, ut aliqui putant, antichristus uno in loco erit ecclesiam persecuturus, cum rex sit novissimus in toto mundo regnaturus, qui se dicat deum. Nunc vero occultus est in ecclesia, sed verus Christus deus occultus numquam de medio ecclesiae discessit.142 For just as was done in Africa, so it is necessary that the Antichrist be revealed in the whole world, and in the same way be overcome everywhere by the church, where he was overcome by her in part for the purpose of showing the way that the last struggle [will happen]. For the Antichrist, as some think, will not persecute the church in [only] one place, since he will rule as the last king over the whole earth, he who calls himself God (2 Thess 2:4b). But now he is hidden in the church, but the true Christ, the hidden God (cf. Isa 45:15), has never departed (2 Thess 2:3b) from the midst of (2 Thess 2:7c) the church.

At present, the hypocrisy of the Antichrist, that is, the opposition of the false church against the true Christians, takes place in a hidden way, but in the presence of the true God who has never left his church. Tyconius indicates that as the church of ancient Philadelphia was assured of the Lord’s closeness, so also the true church is protected by Christ. The second allusion to 2 Thess 2:4a is found in Tyconius’ comment on Rev 13:4. The dragon, which symbolises the devil,143 gives his power and his throne 141 Cf. LR I, 105–8’: “Danihel de rege novissimo: In Deum, inquit locus eius glorificabitur, id est, clarificabitur; veluti ecclesiam in loco ecclesiae, in loco sancto, abominationem vastationis in Deum, id est, in ecclesiam, subornavit.” (“Daniel says concerning the last king: In God his place will be glorified [cf. Dan 11:36.38], that is, will be made famous; as it were, it will provide a church in the place of the church, in the holy place, an abomination of desolation [cf. Dan 11:31; Matt 24:15] in God, that is, in the church”). See also VII, 5.118–23.1. 142 EA I, 4110–18. 143 Cf. EA IV, 91–2: “Et ecce draco russeus magnus, id est diabolus.” (“And behold, a great red dragon [Rev 12:3], that is, the devil”).

1. Members of the Lord’s Body

127

to the beast coming up out of the sea (Rev 13:2; cf. 2 Thess 2:9–10). For Tyconius, in this context, the beast represents the body of the devil,144 whose blasphemy is expressed both outside the church through “the kings of the world,” and also inside through those who “profess that they are gods and sons of God.”145 The false brothers, the earthly people146 inside the church, pretend to belong to God, but, in reality, masquerading themselves as the anti-church and only imitating the true faith, belong to the devil whom they worship in their deeds: Et adoraverunt draconem, quoniam dedit potestatem bestiae, – illi dicunt adorare se deum, qui dedit potestatem Christo, – Et adoraverunt bestiam dicentes: quis similis bestiae aut quis poterit pugnare cum ea? – illi dicunt ‘quis similis Christo aut quis illum potest vincere?’147 And they worshipped the dragon because he gave power to the beast (Rev 13:4). They say that they worship him as the God (cf. 2 Thess 2:4b) who gave power to Christ. And they worshipped the beast, saying: Who is like the beast, or who will be able to make war with him? (Rev 13:4). They say: Who is like Christ, or who is able to overcome him?

Their hypocrisy, as Tyconius’ comments on Rev 13:5–6 indicate, is allowed by God to happen not openly, but in the mystery, which is the mystery of evil (cf. 2 Thess 2:7a).148 The motif of the mystery of evil working within the church is Tyconius’ pivotal theme under which he subordinates other ideas. Tyconius’ scrutiny of Scripture in light of the mystical Rules and his discovery of the unity of the Bible with the events around him allow him to distinguish two kinds of members in the church, true and false brothers. We argue in this study that Tyconius’ idea of reading the Word of God and his own reality in this way is born from his reception of 2 Thessalonians 2. The “Man of sin” as the main motif, along with other minor motifs, allow him to develop the theme of the presence of evil in the church. Evil is ‘incarnated’ in the false members of the church who in their pride desire to replace God. Tyconius’ focus on the present rather than the future allows him to identify the “Man of sin,” called the “Antichrist,” the “Son of Destruction / Perdition,” as the part of the church which he labelled as bipartite. Both good and evil members compose one body of the Lord. His texts do not explicitly blame either the Donatists or the CaeciCf. EA IV, 2513–14: “Nunc ergo bestiam ascendentem de mari corpus diaboli dicit.” (“Therefore, now he calls the body of the devil a beast coming up out of the sea”). 145 Cf. EA IV, 2611–15: “Alio autem loco totam ipsam bestiam plenam dicit nominibus blasphemiae, id est non in solis regibus mundi, quibus intestini deputantur, nomen blasphemiae est, sed etiam in intestinis ipsis, dum se dei filios et deos profitentur.” (“Moreover, in another passage he says that the entire beast itself is full of names of blasphemy [Rev 17:3], that is, there is the name of blasphemy not only in the kings of the world, by whom those inside are condemned; but it is even in the very ones who are inside, when they profess that they are gods and children of God”). 146 Cf. EA IV, 294–5: “Terram posuit pro terrenis, qui diabolum vel ipsius simulacrum.” (“He puts earth for earthly people, who are said to worship the devil or his image”). 147 EA IV, 296–11. 148 Cf. EA IV, 301–8. 144

128

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

lianists, because the exegete’s goal is to invite both parties to a deeper reflection on the essence of Christianity which can be summarised in one word: love. For Tyconius, lack of this cardinal virtue is the criterion which classifies one as a member of the devil’s body. Hatred, rivalry, pride and hypocrisy characterise this opposing body that works secretly in the church according to its diabolic agenda. Tyconius’ interpretation of the above motives is spiritual and goes beyond just the historically visible situation. He shows that the bipartition exists not only in the world and the church, but above all also in each human being who, with the help of reason and faith and illumination by the Spirit, can understand the Word of God which calls him to choose between good and evil.

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body In his writings, Tyconius comforts his readers and assures them of God’s eschatological victory over the wicked forces, but at the same time he warns them that the mystery of evil is already secretly working at the present time (cf. 2 Thess 2:7a). The imperial harassment, violence, and persecutions in fourth century Christian Africa compel Tyconius to think profoundly about suffering human nature. One can sense his perplexity about this situation when the body of the Lord is divided because of the sin of some of its members who, with premeditation, oppose God by persecuting their fellow Christians. For Tyconius, sin means participating in the construction of the “Man of sin” or, in other words, actively working in the body of sin. It is, above all, hypocrisy and falsity which are obvious negations of love. As we have seen, Tyconius believes that love is the most important principle of an authentic Christian life. On the anthropological level, we can define Tyconius’ understanding of sin as a lack of inner integrity in the human being, caused by the rejection of God’s law, which leads to losing the proper orientation in spiritual matters. Divisiveness is a very real sign of the existence of the evil, and it causes spiritual tension throughout the church. The body is meant to be a harmonic organism, but when attacked by a foreign body, it suffers and loses its stability. It has to activate its defensive mechanisms in order to identify its enemies and eliminate them. With the symbolism of the body, Tyconius refuses to externalise the evil and recognises its presence within the church. Hypocritical Christians are allowed by God to perform their iniquitous activities within the Lord’s body, but they do not realise that their work is included in the overall mystery of God’s plan of salvation and justice. Tyconius’ concept of mystery derives from both biblical and historical backgrounds and it warns Christians not to ignore the spiritual dimension hidden behind their actions. The motifs of 2 Thessalonians 2 which we shall discuss in this section are: mysterium facinoris (v. 7a), detineat / detinet (vv. 6a, 7b) and secundum opera-

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body

129

tionem Satanae (v. 9). The second major world-constructing motif is mysterium facinoris, which, for Tyconius, becomes a driving force in the interpretation of the message of the prophetic texts for the Christian community of his day. Only those who are guided by the Spirit are able to become aware of God’s mystery. Those who are under the influence of Satan are prevented from understanding the message of Scripture. The two minor motifs will help us to understand these aspects of the nature of the mystery of evil in Tyconius’ thought. 2.1 Mysterium facinoris The “Man of Lawlessness,” who will be revealed in a future time, is chronologically related to the “mystery of lawlessness” (τὸ μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας), which the author of 2 Thessalonians 2 introduces in v. 7a. This mystery, though in a limited fashion (cf. vv. 6a.7b), is operative at present among the Christians of Thessalonica and in the whole world: τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας· μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται. For the mystery of lawlessness is already working only until the one who is now holding it back is gone from the midst.

In the NT we do not find an exact parallel to τὸ μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας, which would suggest that the phrase is invented by the author himself.149 The opening and emphatic position of the word τὸ μυστήριον in the sentence, and the clear separation from its genitive τῆς ἀνομίας, shows the intended emphasis on the concept of mystery.150 In the ancient Greco-Roman world, the word “mystery” or “mysteries” usually referred to secret teachings or cultic ceremonies. Some scholars speculate that the author could have had such sacred rites in mind.151 In Paul’s writings, the word “mystery” occurs seven times and almost always

149 In the extra-biblical literature, for example in Josephus Flavius, we find the expression “a mystery of evil” with which he describes the life of Antipater, the son of Herod the Great. See Flavius, The Jewish War 1.470, trans. Martin Hammond (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). Several Qumran documents have a close equivalent expression in the plural form: “mysteries of sin” (see 1QH 13 [5].36; 1QM 14.9; 1Q27 1, 2, 7). 150 See Weima, 1–2 Thessalonians, 529. 151 See Karl P. Donfried, “The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence,” NTS 31:3 (1985): 353; Glenn S. Holland, The Tradition That You Received from Us: 2 Thessalonians in the Pauline Tradition, HUT 24 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988), 114; Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 317; Hans-Josef Klauck, “Die antiken Mysterienkulte und das Urchristentum: Anknüpfung und Widerspruch” in Religion und Gesellschaft im frühen Christentum: Neutestamentliche Studien, eds. Jörg Frey, Martin Hengel, and Otfried Hofius, WUNT 152 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 171–93. See also Jan N. Bremmer, Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014) who offers an overview of what we know about the ancient mystery cults and the initiation rituals and asks the question of the influence of the ancient mysteries on Early Christianity.

130

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

refers to a divine truth revealed by God to his believers.152 In 2 Thess 2:7a, as Ben Witherington III claims, the mystery “has the sense not of something incomprehensible but rather of something hidden from plain view but nevertheless extant and at work.”153 This mystery is hidden, but at the same time its character is revealed. Leon Morris observes that “although the lawless principle is at work already it cannot reach its climax at present because of the restrainer. That climax will be reached only when the restainer is ‘taken out of the way.’”154 The genitive τῆς ἀνομίας, understood epexegetically in reference to τὸ μυστήριον, indicates that this mystery is lawlessness, synonymous with “sin” (Rom 6:19) or “darkness” (2 Cor 6:14). Being “without law” is not about the rejection of the Mosaic law, but about rebellion against God.155 The present tense ἐνεργεῖται, which indicates the activity of this mystery, can be either in the middle voice (“is at work”), describing the lawless force at work in the world,156 or in the passive voice (“is made to work”), highlighting God’s role in these events.157 The context of the pericope shows, however, that the activity of the mystery of lawlessness “takes place within and is circumscribed by God’s eschatological plan.”158 T.J. Lang notes that the designation μυστήριον presumably also indicates … that the mystery of lawlessness is something perceived exclusively by Christians. By virtue of possessing the Spirit, Christians recognize that the ἀνομία surrounding them is in fact a critical precursor to the forthcoming rebellion and apocalypse of the man of lawlessness. Others may still witness this same ἀνομία, even perhaps acknowledging it as such, but they remain ignorant of its specific eschatological significance.159

The observation of Lang corresponds quite well to the concept of this mystery in Tyconius, who also suggests that only those guided by the Spirit are able to understand its functionality.

152 Beale claims that the word “mystery” in the NT is often related to the prophetic texts of the OT and see a parallel between 2 Thess 2:7 and the antichrist prophecy in Daniel. He thinks that the beginning of its fulfilment takes place in the Thessalonian church but in an enigmatic manner not clearly foreseen by the prophet. See Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, 218; Nicklas notices that the text alludes not only to the extraordinary nature of the content of this mystery, but also to the knowledge about it that was gained under extraordinary conditions. See Nicklas, Der zweite Thessalonicherbrief, 141. 153 Witherington III, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 222. 154 Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, NICNT, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 228. 155 See Weima, 1–2 Thessalonians, 530. 156 See Bauer, BDAG, 335.b. 157 See Ernest Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, BNTC (London: Black, 1977), 293; Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, 253. 158 Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 423. 159 T.J. Lang, Mystery and the Making of a Christian Historical Consciousness: From Paul to the Second Century, BZNW 219 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), 43.

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body

131

Tyconius employs the phrase τὸ μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας under the Latin translation mysterium facinoris (text Type D). The VL offers other translation variants of this phrase like mysterium iniquitatis (text Type D, I, J), arcanum iniquitatis (text Type X), or ministerium iniquitatum (text Type V).160 Although the noun iniquitas occurs in Tyconius’ vocabulary, he also uses the phrase: the mysterium facinoris, which in this work we prefer to translate as the mystery of evil, rather than the mystery of wickedness or iniquity, because the mystery of evil corresponds better to the overall argument of Tyconius’ concept of the bipartite body of the Lord, whose one part secretly commits evil deeds (facinora). This motif is a thread that runs throughout both of Tyconius’ writings, binding his exegetical considerations on the church into a logical wholeness. According to his hermeneutics, various biblical prophecies facilitate the inquiry into the mystery of evil which, though now partially visible, will be fully revealed only during the final persecution. It is appropriate, in Tyconius’ way of reading Scripture, to see the present and the future as a mingled reality. The “Man of sin,” that is, the Antichrist, who throughout history acts mysteriously, will prove to be the “Son of Perdition” at the moment of the final separation, when the spiritual reality will become evident. Tyconius’ pastoral intelligence wants to make the readers of Scripture recognise the signs of the mystery of evil within the church, manifested in the lovelessness and divisiveness between the believers in Christ. As we have learned earlier, the historical situation of the fourth century Northern Africa church, characterised by persecutions and violence among the Christians themselves, is translated by the exegete into a spiritual language of the mystery which involves both God and the devil. The discordance between good and evil within the church is, in fact, an image of the inner battle of each individual believer, who in the realm of free will, decides either to love or to hate. It is important to notice here that Tyconius not only opens an ecclesiological debate about the presence of evil within the church’s holiness, but also a great anthropological discussion about the human experience of sinfulness, and holiness and about the human capacity to make deliberate decisions based on self-consciousness. A careful reader of the Liber Regularum notices that all seven Rules are, either directly or indirectly, connected with each other by the motif of mysterium facinoris.161 Tyconius gradually unfolds the theme of the enthronement of evil in the midst of the church and, in light of other biblical passages, shows various aspects of this mystery. At the end of the first Rule, he speaks about the church as the holy temple of God but underlines that this temple is bipartite. The one part of the temple is holy, because it belongs only to God and his faithful ones, and the second part is sinful, because it belongs to the unfaithful people who just pretend, like caricatures, to be good. The “Man of sin,” therefore, occupies 160 161

See VL, vol. 25:1, 333. See Bright, The Book of Rules, 115.

132

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

this part of the church (cf. 2 Thess 2:4), but in God’s project such a situation is temporal and, as Tyconius observes, will cease to exist, like the temple building in Jerusalem to which Jesus referred while predicting the destruction of the holy city (cf. Matt 24:2): Corpus itaque in capite suo filius est Dei, et Deus in corpore suo filius est hominis, qui cotidie nascendo venit et crescit in templum sanctum Dei. Templum enim bipertitum est, cuius pars altera, quamuis lapidibus magnis extruatur, destruitur, neque in eo lapis super lapidem relinquetur. Istius nobis iugis adventus cavendus est, donec de medio eius discedat ecclesia.162 Accordingly, the body in its head is the son of God and God in his body is the Son of Man, who daily comes to be born and grows into the holy temple of God (cf. Eph 2:21). For the temple is bipartite, part of which, although it is constructed with great blocks of stones, will be destroyed and in it a stone will not be left upon a stone (cf. Matt 24:2). The immediate advent of this one to us must be watched out for, until from the midst (2 Thess 2:7c) the church may depart (2 Thess 2:3b).

Two spiritual mysteries – divine and diabolic – though so diverse, are encapsulated together throughout time, in the one body of the church. Both of them can also grow in the hearts of believers who are the members of the Lord’s body, because this mystery, as Tyconius shows, is a dynamic and progressive reality. The author of the Liber Regularum recommends that his readers develop the watchful awareness of the presence of evil in the church. The concept of the bipartite church, as presented in Scripture, is a mystery that is hidden and unobservable to unbelievers, but revealed by God to believers. In the second Rule, Tyconius emphasises that this mystery of bipartition in the church should be considered a hermeneutical insight for the interpretation of the Scriptures. This is the key concept that unlocks the interpretation of the obscure prophecies163 that speak about the present situation of the church: Hoc itaque mysterio accipiendum est per omnes Scripturas sicubi Deus dicit ad merita Israhel periturum aut hereditatem suam execrabilem.164 And so throughout all the Scriptures this must be perceived in view of this mystery, as where God says that Israel is about to perish deservedly, or that its inheritance is detestable.

The symbolic name of Israel extends to all persons, cities, or events that are judged negatively in Scripture, and it refers to the evil members of the church. The evil has its own mysteries and seeks to achieve its objectives, but, in the end, God himself is the criterion of truth and justice, who scrutinises and reveals the intentions of everyone. The concluding words of this Rule, which are, at the same time, introductory words to the third Rule, confirm the same truth, namely, that the same body is both good and evil: Ita Dominus in omnibus Scripturis unum corpus seminis Abrahae in omnibus crescere et florere atque perire testatur.165 LR I, 133–9. See LR Prol.1–3.1’–6’. 164 LR II, 131–3. 165 LR II, 1417–19. 162 163

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body

133

Thus, the Lord attests in all the Scriptures that the one body of Abraham’s seed increases in all things and flourishes and perishes.

Tyconius applies this exegetical principle to all the texts he uses, both from the Old and New Testaments. According to him, the spiritual battle within the church throughout her history has been foretold and prophesised in Scripture. The reader must just learn how to use faith and reason in the interpretation of the biblical texts in order to see that the Spirit both warns and comforts the church.166 The first explicit reference to the motif of mysterium facinoris is to be found at the end of the third Rule. By combining various biblical passages, Tyconius describes the deeds of the evil members of the bipartite body and of those outside the church who never wanted to come to faith, either through the law or through Christ. He sees them as a danger to the freedom of those who embrace exemption from the law through grace. It becomes very clear that the conflict between those who remain in slavery to the law and those who live in the freedom of God’s grace continues under the New Covenant:167 Alia enim non est causa qua filii diaboli inrepant ad explorandam libertatem nostram, et simulent se fratres et in paradiso nostro velut Dei filios ludere, quam ut de subacta libertate filiorum Dei glorientur; qui portabant iudicium qualescumque illi fuerint, qui omnem sanctum persecuti sunt, qui prophetas occiderunt, qui semper Spiritui Sancto restiterunt; inimici crucis Christi, negantes Christum in carne dum eius membra oderunt, corpus peccati, filius exterminii in mysterium facinoris, qui veniunt secundum operationem Satanae in omni virtute signis et prodigiis falsitatis, spiritalia nequitiae in caelestibus, quos Dominus Christus quem in carne persecuntur interficiet spiritu oris sui et destruet manifestatione adventus sui. Tempus est enim quo haec non in mysteriis sed aperte dicantur, inminente discessione quod est revelatio hominis peccati, discedente Loth a Sodomis.168 There is no other reason why the sons of the devil creep in to spy out our freedom (Gal 2:4) and make themselves like brothers, and play in our Paradise as if they were sons of God, other than that they may pride themselves on breaking up the freedom of the sons of God, who will bear the judgment whoever they may be (Gal 5:10); those who have persecuted every saint; who killed the prophets; who have always resisted the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51); enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil 3:18), denying that Christ was in the flesh (1 John 2:22; 4:3) even while they hated his members, the body of sin (cf. 2 Thess 2:3c), the Son of Perdition (2 Thess 2:3c) in the mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7a). They come according to the operation of Satan, in all power and with false signs and miracles (2 Thess 2:9), spiritual beings of wickedness in the heavenly places (Eph 6:12), whom the Lord Christ, whom they persecuted when he was in the flesh, will consume by the breath of his mouth and will destroy by the manifestation of his coming (2 Thess 2:8). For this is the time when these things may be said not in secret

166 Such an approach to the interpretation of Scripture is an anticipation of what, in the theology of the Middle Ages, is called duplex ordo cognitionis (a twofold order of knowing). The truth about God and his Revelation are known through the harmony between the order of faith and reason. 167 See Anderson, The Book of Rules, 92, 143f. 168 LR III, 2916–18.1–12.

134

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

but openly, with the imminent departure (2 Thess 2:3b) which is the Revelation of the Man of sin (2 Thess 2:3c), in the departure of Lot from Sodom (cf. Gen 19:29; Luke 17:29–30).

This important section of the Liber Regularum clearly shows a profound tension within the body of the church. The falsity of the devil is confronted with the truth of Christ. The sons of the devil pretend to be brothers, but in reality, they are filled with hatred towards the sons of God. Some expressions, like they “creep in to spy,” “make themselves like,” “as if they were,” refer to their covert activity by which they wish to remain in secret. The phrase, “they play in our Paradise,” indicates that it is not so obvious at first glance that danger is imminent. All the wicked actions of the false brothers are summarised in the motif of the “mystery of evil,” which is inspired and operated by Satan. We shall see in the course of our analysis that Tyconius often clusters the motif of 2 Thess 2:7a with Eph 6:12, which speaks about the ranks of demonic spirits opposing the church. For Tyconius, the expression “the heavenly places” signifies the church, and therefore, these evil beings are allowed to work within the body of the Lord. The way in which the exegete ends this Rule reveals his anxiety: “For this is the time when those things may be said not in mystery but openly.” As an intelligent and attentive person, he feels responsible for making others aware of the existence of mysterium facinoris described in Scripture and manifested in his present context. At the end of the fourth Rule, Tyconius points out that the fiercest and subtlest battle between Satan and Christ takes place not outside, but inside the church. That is why Satan works through the best members of his body, characterised as “noble,” “right” or “serious,” blending them with the crowd of good brothers. They are used as his weapon in an effort to destroy the faith of the saints: Si quid enim summum Satanas in corpore suo, si quid dextrum, si quid grave habet, caelestibus miscuit ut bellantium est mos fortibus fortes opponere. Unde apostolus dicit non esse sanctis pugnam adversum humana, sed adversus spiritalia nequitiae in caelestibus.169 For if Satan has anything noble in his body, if anything right, if anything serious, he mixed it with heavenly things, as is the custom of those who fight to oppose the strong with the strong. Whence the apostle says, the fight of the saints is not against human things, but against the spiritual wickedness in heavenly places (Eph 6:12).

Tyconius emphasises that this mysterious plotting of the evil forces is not comparable to human fighting. He again associates the motif of the “mystery of evil” with the “spiritual wickedness” of demonic ranks (cf. Eph 6:12). That spiritual reality is invisible, but its evil fruits are visible in the church’s division and mutual persecution. At the end of the fifth Rule, Tyconius presents the church as an image of Noah’s ark whose construction, according to his calculations, took one hun-

169

LR IV, 20.37–12.

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body

135

dred years.170 During that time, Noah and his family had to live in the midst of wicked and corrupted people: Nam et centum anni quibus arca fabricata est omne tempus est quo Ecclesia fabricatur, et eo tempore in diluvio pereuntibus universis gubernatur.171 For even the hundred years in which the ark was being constructed is the whole time in which the church is being constructed, and in that time, it governs all those perishing in the flood.

This example illustrates the situation of the church throughout her history, having to tolerate in her midst the wickedness of the “mystery of evil.” Tyconius stresses, however, that in fact, it is the church who, as the body of the Lord, has control over this mystery. The persecution of the true church may apparently show her vulnerability, but, effectively, it is she that, having the authority from God, keeps control over the coexistence of both realities and only God knows its purpose. That would mean that the mystery of the true church is much greater than the mystery of the false church. Nevertheless, the church must remain vigilant, as Tyconius recommends at the conclusion of Rule Six. He warns against the deceitful works of the Antichrist who pretends to be Christ, but, in truth, serves the devil. The false brothers masquerade themselves, attempting to imitate the mysteries of God hidden in “the inner chambers” of the church: Dominum autem Christum Antichristus non voto sed occasione praedicat. Alio tendens per Christi nomen ingreditur, quo sibi viam sternat, quo sub Christi nomine ventri pareat, et his – quae turpe est dicere – sanctitatis et simplicitatis nomen imponat, signis et prodigiis cubiculorum opera Christum esse adseverans. Quos salubri cautione vitare admonet apostolus dicens: Filioli, abstinete vos a simulacris.172 However, the Antichrist was preaching that Christ is Lord, not out of commitment but as a pretence. Holding to another, he enters by the name of Christ, by which he paves a way for himself, by which he may fulfil the wishes of his belly under the name of Christ, and – what a disgraceful thing it is to say – upon these he imposes the name of sanctity and simplicity, asserting with signs and wonders of the inner chambers, that these are the works of Christ (cf. Matt 24:24.26). The apostle warns them to live by healthy caution, saying: Little children, keep yourselves from idols (1 John 5:21).

Tyconius may have been thinking about those among the Donatists and the Caecilianists whose lives did not correspond to the message they preached. Acts of persecution and violence are incompatible with being a Christian. Lovelessness, division, and hatred have nothing to do with the holiness of 170 The ecclesiological interpretation of Noah’s ark can be found in 1 Pet 3:20 and church fathers like Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Gregory of Elvira and many others. Tyconius here uses this image for the symbolic illustration of the church’s perseverance in the struggle with evil. In EA I, 110–11 he says “Ut arca Noe ecclesia, et octo animae que intra arcam sunt ecclesia.” (“The ark of Noah is the church, and the eight souls that are inside the ark are the church”). The extreme Donatists believed that in the end times the church may be reduced to the number of the household of Noah. See EA I, 424–7. 171 LR V, 8.313.1–2. 172 LR VI, 4.44–10.

136

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

Christ. The believer who discovers in himself such an attitude belongs to the “mystery of evil,” and his proclamation of Christ loses its credibility. Why God permits the activity of evil among those he considers his property is the question that bothered Tyconius. This is a question which humans always ask when confronting evil and suffering or experiencing injustice. At the end, one has to learn to find God and his Revelation in such circumstances, and to discover God in this mysterious reality. The last Rule, On the Devil and his Body, sheds some light on that problem. As we have said in the previous chapter, the Donatists lived mainly in the Southern part and the Caecilianists in the Northern part of the North Africa region. In the Donatist theology, their geographical area was chosen by the Lord, whereas the North was the area of the devil. The images from the prophet Ezekiel and the Songs of Songs which Tyconius employs here, would suggest that in this context, he considers the Caecilianist association with the Roman Empire as evil and destructive: Huic populo ex Austro comminatur Deus, sicut per Ezechielem Sor increpat dicens: Spiritus Austri contrivit te. Si etiam confringere permittit, dicens: Exurge Aquilo, et veni Auster, perfla hortum meum, et defluent unguenta mea.173 However, God warns this people from the South, just as through Ezekiel he rebukes Sor, saying: The South wind has broken you (Ezek 27:26). Even if he permits it to be broken, saying: Arise, O North wind and come, O South wind, blow over my garden, and let my fragrances flow down (Song 4:16).

The conversions from Donatism to Caecilianism and vice versa, which were taking place, especially in the first phase of the conflict, could be the background to this literary construction. Like his fellow Donatists, the exegete does not believe in a positive integration of the church with certain aspects of what he experienced as a state. His own encounter with imperial injustice and violence only intensified this conviction. Tyconius’ main point is not to resolve the controversy on its administrative or ideological level, but to find out the hidden spiritual meaning of the church’s situation. He is convinced that each party had both evil and good people and that each believer has in himself the capacity to do evil or good. The human reality is bipartite, and the encounter of two opposite realities is, for Tyconius, the “mystery of evil”: Et per Ezechielem item ex reliquiis populi mali sic dicit Deus adducere super populum suum partem eiusdem populi, quod est mysterium facinoris: Ecce ego super te Gog, principem Ros, Mesoc et Tobel. Et congregabo te et deducam te et ponam te a novissimo Aquilone, et adducam te super montes Israhel, et perdam arcum tuum de manu tua sinistra, et sagittas tuas de manu tua dextera, et deiciam te super montes Israhel.174 And also through Ezekiel, God says that from the remaining evil people he will bring a part of them against his own people, which is the mystery of evil: Behold, I will bring against you Gog, prince of Ros, Mesoc and Tobel. And I will gather you, and lead you away and set

173 174

LR VII, 4.39–12. LR VII, 4.315–17.1–5.

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body

137

you down from the uttermost parts of the North, and will bring you upon the mountains of Israel (Ezek 39:1–4).

The above texts clearly indicate that God allows this mixture of evil and good in the church, somehow risking the harmony and beauty of the Lord’s body. That would mean that God has not only complete control over this situation, but also a specific goal ‘in mind,’ which he wants to achieve. That has already been prophesied in the Scripture and endures for the entire temporal existence of the church: Hoc autem geritur a passione Domini, quoadusque de medio eiusdem mysterii facinoris discedat Ecclesia quae detinet, ut in tempore suo detegatur impietas, sicut apostolus dicit: Et nunc quid detineat scitis, ut in suo tempore detegatur. Mysterium enim iam operatur facinoris, tantum ut qui detinens detinet modo, quoadusque de medio fiat; et tunc revelabitur ille impius.175 However, this is produced from the time of the Lord’s passion until from the midst (2 Thess 2:7c) of this same mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7a) the church gives up the things which it detains, in order that in his time impiety may be exposed, just as the apostle says: And now you know what detains, so that in his time he may be revealed. For the mystery of evil is already at work, until he who detains now is taken out of the way; and then the impious one will be revealed (2 Thess 2:6–8).

As we have said earlier, for Tyconius the role of the “mystery of evil” in the church is a puzzle. The exegete recognises God’s role in this reality. On the one hand, God allows trials and persecutions to test the faithfulness of his own people and, on the other hand, lets the evil part perish in the meandering of the “mystery of evil.”176 Tyconius seems to present this dilemma yet again in the third important theme of the seventh Rule, namely, in his concept of sin and human freedom. The kingdom of the devil and the kingdom of God are comprised of individuals who have the capacity of deciding whether to follow sin or grace, the devil or God. Tyconius says explicitly that “man has in himself both evil (facinorum) and pure treasures.”177 He refers three times to Ezek 28:18, which partially explains why God allows the existence of the “mystery of evil”: “On account of the multitude of your sins and the iniquity of your business I have contaminated your holy things.”178 The individual’s freedom makes one capable of storing LR VII, 4.35–11’. Cf. LR VII, 12.122–25: “Frequenter enim inducit Deus in Ecclesiam alienigenas, et multos in morte vulnerant. Sed etiam occulta persecutione multos inducit ex gentibus, in quibus temptet populum suum, et occidat nequam per similes sicut Mathathiam.” (“For frequently God brings foreigners into the church, and they wound many to death. But also, by secret persecution he brings many out from among the Gentiles among whom he tests his people, and he destroys the worthless part together with them, just as he kills Mathathias”). In Burkitt’s edition and in the V E manuscripts we find Maziam for Mathathiam and in P Mathiam. 177 LR VII, 14.35–6: “Et homo in se habet thesauros tam facinorum quam perspicuos.” 178 LR VII, 18.18–9: “Propter multitudinem peccatorum tuorum et iniquitatem negotiationis tuae contaminavi sancta tua.” See also: 17.21–2; 18.121–22. 175 176

138

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

up treasures of spiritual wickedness, that is sin, or of spiritual righteousness, that is piety.179 The refusal of God’s sanctity leads to self-centredness and leads to false sanctity based on their own idols.180 Tyconius is, however, convinced that God will not allow the “mystery of evil” to reign endlessly in the church. Its termination is foreseen in God’s plan, and it is precisely the holiness of the true church that will consume the wickedness of the false brothers who bring God’s justice on themselves: Educam ignem de medio tui, hic te devorabit. Ignis Ecclesia est, quae cum discesserit e medio mysterii facinoris tunc pluet ignem Dominus a Domino de Ecclesia, sicut scriptum est: Sol exortus est super terram, et Loth intravit in Segor, et pluit Dominus super Sodomam et Gomorram sulphur et ignem a Domino de caelo.181 I will bring forth a fire from your midst, it will devour you (Ezek 28:18). The fire is the church which, when it will have departed (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) from the midst of (2 Thess 2:7c) the mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7a), then the Lord will rain fire by the Lord from the church, just as it is written: The sun rose upon the earth, and Lot entered into Segor. And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire by the Lord from heaven (Gen 19:23–24).

In this Rule, Tyconius employs the image of “fire” as the medium of either sanctification or decontamination. In this particular context, “fire” is used by God to destroy the sinful condition of the church. The last words of the Liber Regularum summarise the destiny of the evil body that fosters the activity of the mystery of evil: Et omnes qui te noverunt inter nationes contristabuntur super te. Cum enim Dominus percutit aut detegit malos, contristantur qui eorum auxilio fulciri solent, corporis sui parte debilitata. Perditio facta es, et non eris in aeternum.182 And all who knew you among the nations will be saddened over you (Ezek 28:19); for when the Lord slays or exposes the evil ones, they will be saddened who are accustomed to having been supported by their assistance, by the part of his body which was disabled. You were made for destruction and you will cease to be (Ezek 28:19).

Tyconius wants to make clear that evil is destructive in itself, and that it is temporarily capable of being renewed through the generation of new evil members who surrender to it and reject the truth, its end is foreseen by God. Again, this present obstructive cycle of evil in the midst of the church is what Tyconius considers to be the mysterium facinoris (2 Thess 2:7a). This constant motif in his work, expressed both directly and indirectly, invites his contemporaries to spiritual self-reflection on the status of the divided and wounded church; it also 179 Cf. LR VII, 18.112.17–19: “spiritalis iustitiae negotiatio est thesaurus … et apostolus: Est inquit negotiatio magna pietas. Ita spiritalis nequitia negotiatio est, thesaurus peccatorum.” (“the business of spiritual righteousness is a treasure … and the apostle says: Piety is a great business (cf. 1 Tim 6:6). So, spiritual wickedness is a business, a treasury of sins”). 180 Cf. LR VII, 18.122–23: “Qui enim non recte sanctitate Dei utitur, suam efficit.” (“For he who does not use rightly the sanctity of God makes his own sanctity”). 181 LR VII, 18.21–6. 182 LR VII, 191–5.

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body

139

calls for an inner conversion to authentic love, truth and goodness. In other words, this major motif suggests a religious, intellectual and moral conversion of each and every Christian, and the entire Christian community. The importance of this motif is further seen in Tyconius’ exploration of the text of Revelation, in which many apocalyptic images allow him to discover new aspects of the mysterium facinoris. Apart from Rev 4–5, which describes the heavenly liturgy, and Rev 21–22, which presents the heavenly Jerusalem, Tyconius’ comments focus on the motif of the “mystery of evil,” also understood here as the spiritual conflict between the opposing bodies. It seems that in this way he even creates a thematic continuity with the entire Liber Regularum. Everything in the Rules, as we have seen, and especially the seventh Rule, is concerned with the theme of internal warfare in the church that is provoked by the presence of the evil in her midst. Tyconius accentuates the same idea at the beginning of his Expositio Apocalypseos, creating a kind of preamble to his Commentary: In hoc libro nihil aliud invenies nisi bella et incendia intestina, quae deus per Christum suum revelare ecclesiae suae dignatus est, ut imminente discessione sciret populus dei quanta et qualia per tot annos sustineat. Si minus intellexerit, spiritu tamen dei gubernante cavendo fugiendoque facinoris mysterium, id est spiritalia nequitiae in caelestibus, per singulos dies mala vitaverit et aequanimiter et patienter pressuras supportaverit, tamquam aurum in fornace probatus erit.183 In this book [the Revelation] you will find nothing else but internal wars and fires, which God deigned through his Christ to reveal to his church, so that in the imminent departure (2 Thess 2:3b) the people of God might know the quantity and quality [of the tribulations] they must endure throughout so many years. If one does not understand, nevertheless with the Spirit of God directing, by being aware of and by fleeing the mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7a), that is, spirits of wickedness in the heavenly places (Eph 6:12), throughout each of those days he will avoid the evils and will bear the tribulations both calmly and patiently, and will be tried as gold in a furnace (Eccl 3:6).

Tyconius’ comment mentioned above refers to Rev 1:15, where the phrase – “feet tried in a furnace” – is interpreted as the symbol of tribulations that the church has to experience. True believers, who read the Scriptures with the assistance and inspiration of the Spirit of God, that is, those who follow the mystical Rules, are able to uncover the hidden meanings of the text, which help them to avoid falling into the trap of the “mystery of evil.” Already at the beginning of his Commentary, Tyconius clearly defines this mystery as “spirits of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:12). He is aware of the fact that it is a spiritual war, in which a believer is not just a passive pawn flustered by the shrouded evil forces, but is an active player who determines his own future with or without God. The theatre of this spiritual warfare is the bipartite condition of the church and the bipartite disposition of human nature. In his radical position, and in contrast to the Donatists, Tyconius 183

EA I, 528–36.

140

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

refuses to see the “mystery of evil” as only an external reality. As we have said in the previous section, he recognises in the red horse (cf. Rev 6:4) the open hypocrisy of the people of the left, who are not the members of the church. His focus is, however, mainly on the hidden hypocrisy of the false brothers symbolised by the black horse (Rev 6:5–6): Equus niger falsorum caterva est fratrum, qui, dum se fingunt iustitiae libram tenere, socios laedunt per opera tenebrarum. Dum enim in medio animalium dicitur ‘ne laeseris,’ ostenditur illic esse qui laedit. Describit mysterium facinoris et spiritalia nequitiae in caelestibus, quibus non permittitur neque in se propter alios neque in aliis vim sacramentorum violare. In vino et oleo unctionem et sanguinem domini, in tritico autem et hordeo ecclesiam dixit, sive in magnis et minimis, sive in praepositis et populis.184 The black horse is the crowd of false brothers, who, while they think they are holding a scale of justice, harm their companions through works of darkness (Rom 13:12). For when it is said in the midst of the living creatures: Do not harm (Rev 6:6), it is shown in that passage that there is one who harms. He describes the mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7a) and spirits of wickedness in high places (Eph 6:12), which are not permitted to invalidate the power of the sacraments either in themselves on account of others, or in others. In the wine and oil, he spoke of the unction and blood of the Lord, but in the wheat and barley the church, whether in the greatest and in the least, in the bishops and in the people.

Notably, Tyconius again associates 2 Thess 2:7a with Eph 6:12, but here, under the celebratory life of the church, it is expressed in the administration and reception of the sacraments. This aspect is important, because the inseparable unity of believing and living forms the essence of the Christian life. For the Donatists, the sacraments administered by the Caecilianist bishops and priests were invalid, because their cooperation with the Roman Empire made them sinful and deprived them of moral worthiness. This internal argument in the church brought confusion among the believers about the validity of baptisms, consecration of the Eucharist and rites of priestly orders and, therefore, the means of salvation. Tyconius advocates the validity of the Caecilianist sacraments, as the Caecilianists acknowledged the validity of the Donatists’ sacraments. According to him, it is the same mystery that emerges from the same faith, from the same Triune God, and hence, it is God’s sphere, impenetrable by the “mystery of evil.” Where God acts directly, the devil is not permitted to be present, because the sacraments are holy, not on account of humans, but rather on account of God. It seems that Tyconius makes a mindful correlation between two terms here, sacramentum and μυστήριον, in order to emphasise that the “mystery of evil” is not able to violate the sacramental mystery of God.185 EA II, 347–16. In the North Africa VL translations of the NT we can find both sacramentum and mysterium for μυστήριον. During the first three centuries in the Latin West the use of the term sacramentum was more common than mysterium. Most likely it was so due to the risk of confusion with pagan cultic connotations of the Hellenistic terminology. The terms like mysteria, sacra, arcana, or initia are rarely found in the writings of early Christian authors, while sacramentum is widespread in the writings of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Novatian. See 184 185

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body

141

By now, we begin to notice that Tyconius’ interpretation of the book of Revelation is consistently ecclesiocentric. Two warring churches sharply opposing one another are the background to the construction of his literary world. Another example of this inner struggle, with the presence of the “mystery of evil” in the church, is seen in Tyconius’ comments on Rev 7:1. The “four angels standing on the four corners of the earth and the four winds of the earth,” mentioned in this verse, represent the bipartite church: Iste flatus per Danielum prophetam adversus dicitur irruisse in populos: Ecco, inquit, quattuor venti caeli irruerunt in mare magnum, et de mari ascenderunt quattuor bestiae, quas angelus quattuor regna mundi esse dixit, ut in quattuor angulis terrae ostenderet ecclesiam tenere partem suam regnis adhuc mundi permixtam. At ubi omnis Israel in fine mundi saluus factus fuerit, fiet de medio eius quam detinet, et tunc pars quarta angelorum soluta in suo tempore aperietur, sicut apostolus dicit: Et nunc quid detineat scitis, ut in suo tempore denudetur; mysterium enim facinoris iam operatur; tantum qui detinens detinet modo, quoadusque de medio fiat, et tunc revelabitur ille impius. Non est enim regnum cui deputentur falsi fratres, quia saeculi reges omnes mali dicuntur.186 The adverse breath is said through the prophet Daniel is to have rushed against the people: Behold, he says, the four winds of heaven rushed upon the great sea, and four beasts arose from the sea (Dan 7:2–3), which an angel said are the four kingdoms of the world, that he might show in the four corners of the earth (Rev 7:1) that the church has a part of itself still mixed together with the kingdoms of the world (cf. Dan 7:17–18). But when all Israel is saved (Rom 11:26) at the end of the world, [the mystery of evil] will separate from what it holds, and then in his own time a fourth part of the angels that are released (cf. Rev 9:14–15) will be manifested, as the Apostle says: And you know what now restrains him, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of evil is already working; only he who restrains him is now holding him until he comes from the midst. And then that wicked one will be revealed (2 Thess 2:6–8). For there is not a [particular] kingdom to which false brothers belong, since all worldly kings are called wicked.

Tyconius does not identify the Roman Empire or any other earthly kingdom187 as the “mystery of evil,” but he points out that false brothers are present in the church all over the world, because spiritual wickedness can dwell in the human heart, and it is not limited to a particular geographical area. The decision to root oneself in or uproot oneself from a worldly mentality is the question of human will, which continuously struggles as long as the time of the bipartite reality

James K. Lee, Augustine and the Mystery of the Church (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017), 6; Joseph de Ghellinck et al., Pour l’histoire du mot “sacramentum” (Louvain: Peeters, 1924), 30, 51, 55; Theodore Foster, “‘Mysterium’ and ‘Sacramentum’ in the Vulgate and Old Latin Versions,” AmJT 19 (1915): 404–15; Christine Mohrmann, “Sacramentum dans les plus anciens textes chrétiens,” HTR 47 (1954): 143–45. 186 EA II, 4411–24. 187 For Bede the Venerable, who in his Commentary on the Apocalypse follows Tyconius, the four angels signify the four principal kingdoms: the Assyrians, the Persians, the Greek and the Romans. See Bedae Presbyteri Expositio Apocalypseos, in Weinrich, Latin Commentaries on Revelation, 131–32.

142

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

exists. A believer’s freedom makes him capable of restraining evil before it reveals itself in his own heart. Through his comments on the narrative of the two witnesses in Rev 11:3–14, Tyconius wants to clarify that his exegesis refers both to the present time of the church and to her tribulation during the last persecution. The two witnesses represent the church prophesying in the two Testaments.188 The exegete again underlines that the enemy body is now called to conversion and warned of its imminent destruction. The degradation of the bodies of the two witnesses signifies the disdain of divine instructions by the false brothers. This is the sign of the “mystery of evil” that happens in the spiritual time of the church, following the logic of synecdoche, designated as three and a half days or three years and six months.189 The future tribulation of the last persecution, according to the sixth Rule, is continually recapitulated in the historical time of the church’s present experience: Numquam enim separat praesens tempus a novissimo, quo spiritalis nequitia revelabitur, quia nec nunc desinit mala opera hominibus suggerendo, nec tunc desinet eadem exercendo.190 For he never separates the present time from the last when spiritual wickedness (Eph 6:12) will be revealed. Because he neither desists now in suggesting evil works to people, nor will he desist then in doing the same things.

188 Cf. EA III, 644–5: “Quod est enim Iohannes, hoc duo testes, id est ecclesia duobus testamentis prophetans.” For Tyconius two Testaments symbolise the church. For example, commenting on “the breasts from Rev 1:13 (EA I, 25–8) he says: “et in testamentis ecclesia intellegi, ut tamquam testamenta ex eo quod efficiunt comparationem accipiant. Non enim testamenta pascuntur, sed ecclesia per testamenta nutritur.” (“in the Testaments the church can be understood, being that the Testaments can be interpreted by comparing what they produce. For the Testaments do not ‘feed’ [themselves],’ but the church is nourished through the Testaments”) and then in EA I, 234–35: “In mamillis ergo testamenta intellegimus, id est ecclesiam, quae per testamenta vivit.” (“In the breast, therefore, we understand the Testaments, that is, the church, which lives through the Testaments”). In his comments on Rev 4:7–8 (EA II, 917–19) Tyconius speaks about the church’s dependance on the two Testaments: “Ecclesiam … quae libera atque a terra suspensa duorum testamentorum gubernaculis ad caelum, ubi cadaver suum ire conspexerat, elevator.” (“the church … is lifted up, free, and suspended above the earth, guided along by the two Testaments to heaven, where it had looked around to find her food”) and interpreting Rev 5:1 (EA II, 152–6) underlines the Old and New Testaments mutual complementarity: “utrumque testamentum, a foris vetus, ab intus novum, quod intra vetus latebat, propterea autem unus liber, quia nec novum sine vetere, nec vetus sine novo; nam vetus nuntius est et velamen novi, et novum adimpletio et revelatio veteris.” (“each Testament; on the outside the Old, on the inside the New, which is hidden in the Old. Moreover, it is one book for this reason: because the New [cannot exist] without the Old, nor can the Old without the New; for the Old is the messenger and veiling of the New; and the New the fulfilment and Revelation of the Old”). See also EA III, 644–5, 668–10, 712–4; IV, 214–5, 391–2; V, 2410–11; VII, 276–8. 189 See EA III, 731–3 and the fifth Rule On Times in LR. 190 EA III, 738–11.

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body

143

As we have mentioned earlier, Tyconius identifies the “mystery of evil” with the “spiritual wickedness” described in Eph 6:12. It will be revealed in the future, but, at present, the head of the enemy body, the devil, is concerned about the continuity of this spiritual combat within the church. It is described even more explicitly by Tyconius in his comments on Rev 12–13. Chapter twelve begins with two signs appearing in heaven: “a great sign and another sign.” The first one “is a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet” (Rev 12:1), who represents the bipartite church. The second sign is “a great red dragon” which signifies the devil (cf. Rev 12:9).191 Tyconius again underlines the masquerade of the devil and the false brothers who pretend to believe in the same Christ: Aliud autem signum dixit de contrarietate. Supra dixit signum magnum, et hic aliud signum; nam professio una est ecclesiae et mysterio facinoris, et eo nomine et charismate quo ecclesia facit signa et prodigia, quaerens ecclesiae natum devorare. In caelo enim visus est draco, id est in ecclesia.192 Moreover, he [John] spoke of another sign by way of contrast. Above he said a great sign (Rev 12:1) and here another sign; for the profession of the church and that of the mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7a) is the same; and in that name [that is, Christian] and by that charism through which the church performs signs and wonders (cf. Matt 24:24; 2 Thess 2:9), [the dragon] seeks to devour the one born of the church. For a dragon was seen in heaven (Rev 12:3), that is, in the church.

The exegete contrasts the faith of the true church with the pseudo-faith of the false church, hidden behind the “mystery of evil,” which is not easily detectable. Therefore, the dragon has a time and space in the church for his activity of misleading the true members of the Lord’s body through the false brothers. As Tyconius explains in his first Rule, and here as well, the church’s resistance to the temptations of the devil and her witness to the true faith during persecutions give continual birth to Christ.193 Not responding with hatred to hatred gives birth to love in the church, which results in authentic participation in the life of Christ. Again, Tyconius is thinking about the bishops and believers of the African church who, through their anti-Christian attitude, gave more space to the devil than to Christ. The persecutions of the pagan Roman Empire could be bearable and explicable, but the fact of Christians fighting with each other was considered by the young African theologian as an awful and cunning plan of the devil, who in this way continues to be born. Commenting on the dragon’s anger at the woman, as in Rev 12:17, Tyconius says:

EA IV, 61–7, 91–2. EA IV, 92–7. 193 See LR I, 94–7. Cf. EA IV, 82: “Cotidie per omne tempus parit ecclesia.” (“Every day through all time the church gives birth”); 124–5: “Semper enim cruciatibus parit ecclesia Christum per membra.” (“For the church always in pain gives birth to Christ through her members”). 191 192

144

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

Videns non posse continuari persecutiones, quod ore sanctae terrae removerentur, magis se armavit mysterio facinoris insistere, quo posset iugiter insidiari.194 Seeing that the persecutions were not able to be continued, because they were removed by the mouth of the holy earth, he armed himself to pursue even more by means of the mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7a), with which he could continually ambush.

The war of the dragon with “the rest of her offspring who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Rev 12:17) is harsher and more dangerous. It is not like external persecutions, which last for a certain period of time and then cease. This inner persecution is spiritual, constant and befuddling. The devil persecutes the church precisely by means of the “mystery of evil.” That is why Tyconius attempts, with his peculiar interpretation of Scripture, to unmask the “mystery of evil” and to warn his readers about this still invisible reality, as well as to encourage the true Christians to bear this burden until it is visibly exposed and annihilated. Rev 13:1–10 speaks about the beast from the sea, to whom the dragon gives his power and his throne (cf. vv. 2.4). The beast represents the body of the devil working in the church, nevertheless, “not with an open mouth,” meaning, in the mystery. This situation takes place between two advents of Christ, that is, in the entire time of the church: Et datum est ei, id est permissum est a deo toti corpori diabolic, os loqui magna et blasphemias, et data est ei potestas facere menses quadraginta duos, non aperte, sed cum se dei filios dicunt, dei filiis insidiantur.195 And there was given to him, that is, to the whole body of the devil it was permitted by God [to have], a mouth to speak great things and blasphemies. And power was given to him to do [so] for forty-two months (Rev 13:5), not with an open mouth, but when they say that they are sons of God, they plot against the sons of God.

By the addition of the phrase: “not with an open mouth,” the exegete makes a contrast with the following verse (Rev 13:6), in which the beast opens his mouth, meaning, exposes its mystery: Deinde apervit os suum in blasphemiam ad Deum. Ante enim per tres annos et dimidium non aperto ore blasphemant, sed in mysterio facinoris, quod facta discessione et revelato homine peccati nudabitur. Sic enim loqui deus dicit malos ad deum, ut seducant: Stultus stulta loquetur et cor eius vana intelleget, ut perficiat scelesta et loquatur ad deum seductionem, ut dispergat animas esurientes et animas sitientes inanes faciat.196 Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God (Rev 13:6). For previously they blaspheme throughout the three and a half years not with an open mouth but in the mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7a), which is exposed when the departure (2 Thess 2:3b) happens and the Man of sin is revealed (2 Thess 2:3c). For God says that evil people speak against God in such a manner as to deceive: A fool will speak foolish things, and his heart will understand

EA IV, 233–6. EA IV, 301–4. 196 EA IV, 304–12. 194 195

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body

145

vain things, so that he practices evil things and speaks deception against God, with the result of sending away hungry souls and leaving thirsty souls empty (Isa 32:6).

On the one hand, Tyconius speaks about the present reality of the church, and on the other hand, he points to the future liberation of the Lord’s body from this harassment. The evil people who compose the beast are deceived by the dragon and try to deceive others. Participation in evil makes a human heart incapable of recognising and accepting the truth, goodness and beauty of God. Such an attitude leads to a spiritual schizophrenia, where a man imagines his own identity predicated upon God, but at the same time negates God’s divinity, by turning against the truth and embracing falsity, by turning against goodness and embracing wickedness, and by turning against beauty and embracing ugliness. The beast from the land, described in Rev 13:11–18, represent for Tyconius, the church’s leaders, namely false bishops, who are loyal to the devil and insidiously lead the faithful away from Christ. The African exegete’s personal experience made him think of the Caecilianist bishops who cooperated with the empire, or even of the Donatist bishops who used to involve ordinary people in physical violence against the other party, while considering themselves as the elite. This beast exercises open hypocrisy in the bishops “as one blaspheming with an open mouth.”197 For Tyconius, both beasts, though having different functions, constitute the enemy body of the devil.198 The bishops’ anti-Christian activity reveals their hypocrisy and, therefore, the “mystery of evil” becomes partially perceptible. Tyconius’ interpretation is however spiritual and pastoral. He searches to direct our attention to the core of the evil, which is the lack of inner integrity, which is the result of being separated from God. The beast, being disunited in itself, attempts to infect others with its iniquity: Et facit omnes minimos et magnos et divites et pauperes et liberos et servos, ut dent eis notam super manum eorum dexteram aut super frontem eorum qui ad hoc mysterium pertinent; mysterium enim describit facinoris. Sancti enim, qui sunt in ecclesia, Christum accipiunt in manu et in fronte, id est in opere et in professione, hypocritae autem bestiam sub Christi

Cf. EA IV, 371–3: “Descripta generaliter bestia primo in hypocrisi, deinde aperto ore blasphemantem, describit in solis praepositis similiter hypocrisin revelatam.” (“Having first described in a general way the beast in hypocrisy, he then describes in a similar manner the open hypocrisy in the bishops alone, as one blaspheming with an open mouth”); 405–8: “In praepositis enim quos describit est omnis potestas populi tamquam locustarum et equorum in caudis. Adstante enim populo faciunt praepositi quod diaboli voluntati proficiat sub velamento charismatis ecclesiae.” (“For in the bishops, whom he describes, is all the power [over] the people, as that of the locustus and horses in their tails [cf. Rev 9:10.19]. For with the people standing by, the bishops do, under the guise of a gift of the church, what advances the will of the devil”). 198 Cf. EA IV, 381–3: “Et vidi aliam bestiam ascendentem de terra. ‘Aliam’ dixit de officio; alias una est. Quod est mare, hoc terra.” (“And I saw another beast coming up out of the land [Rev 13:11]. He said another because of his function; otherwise, both beasts are one”). 197

146

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

nomine. Ostendit praeterea unam bestiam bicornem multos esse; dum dicit ‘facit,’ unam ostendit, et dum dicit ‘ut dent eis notam,’ multos insinuat.199 And he causes everyone, small and great and rich and poor and freedmen and slaves, to receive a mark upon their right hand or upon the forehead of those (Rev 13:16) who apply to this mystery; for he is describing the mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7a). For the saints who are in the church receive Christ on their hand and on their forehead, that is, indeed and in profession. But hypocrites [receive] the beast under the name of Christ. In this way he shows that the one beast with two horns (cf. Rev 13:11) is many: When he says he causes, he shows that it is one; and when he says that they should receive a mark, he implies many.

This comment on Rev 13:16 reminds us how one, in accord with Tyconius’ criteria, can recognise Christian integrity: love is the mark of the true brothers, and hatred is the mark of the false brothers.200 The hypocrites try, however, to imitate the true mark of the saints, pretending brotherly love, but their deeds contradict what they profess. Hating members of the body of Christ signifies the denial of Christ’s incarnation. This is the great sign of the Antichrist,201 which Tyconius makes equal to the mark of the beast. The beast is allied with the great harlot described at the beginning of Rev 17. They are one and the same entity and have the same purpose, to oppose the body of the Lord.202 Through this example, Tyconius again demonstrates how devious the evil forces are. The “woman sitting upon the beast” (Rev 17:2) is “clothed in purple and scarlet,” which refers to the sinfulness of the enemy body and its cruelty in persecuting the church.203 But she is also “adorned with gold and precious stone and pearls” (Rev 17:4), which Tyconius interprets as a “simulation of the truth,” the camouflage of the devil’s body.204 A “golden chalice in her hand full of abomination and impurity of her fornication” (Rev 17:4), represents the EA IV, 441–9. Tyconius commenting on 1 John 2:9; 4:20 in the sixth rule of LR (4.27–10) says: “Si enim ut dicit diligit Deum, doceat operibus, adhaereat Deo, diligat Deum in fratre. Si credit Christum incarnatum, quiescat odisse membra Christi. Si credit Verbum carnem factum, quid persequitur Verbum in carne? … non operetur malum Christo in carne, id est in servis eius”. (“For if he loves God as he says, let him show it by works; let him cling to God; let him love God in the brother. If he believes in Christ incarnate, let him stop hating the members of Christ. If he believes that the Word became flesh, why does he persecute the Word in the flesh? … let him do no evil to Christ in the flesh, i.e., in his servants”). See also 4.416–18. 201 Cf. LR VI, 4.218–20: “Aliud maius et evidentius signum agnoscendi Antichristi non esse dixit, quam qui negat Christum in carne, id est odit fratrem.” (“He [John] said that there is no other greater and more evident sign for knowing the Antichrist than that one denies Christ in the flesh, that is, one who hates his brother”). 202 Cf. EA VI, 32–3: “Meretrix, bestia, heremus unum sunt.” (“The harlot, the beast, and the desert are one”). 203 Cf. EA VI, 41: “Coccineam, id est peccatricem et cruentam.” (“Scarlet, that is, sinful and bloody”). 204 EA VI, 51–3: “et adornata avro et lapide pretioso et margaritis, id est omnibus inlecebris simulatae veritatis.” (“and was adorned with gold and precious stone and pearls [Rev 17:4], that is, with every allurement of simulation of the truth”). 199 200

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body

147

hypocrisy of the false brothers who, like the Pharisees in Matt 23:27–28, “on the outside appear to men as righteous, but inside are full of every impurity.” The aim of this masquerading of the enemy body is to deceive the saints: Et in fronte eius nomen scriptum mysterium, Babylon magna mater fornicationum et exsecrationum terrae. Nulla est superstitio quae fronti det signum, nisi hypocrisis. Spiritus autem retulit quid sit scriptum in fronte mulieris; nam quis talem titulum aperte imponat? Mysterium enim dixit esse, quod interpretatus est dicens: Et vidi mulierem ebriam de sanguine sanctorum et sanguine martyrum Iesu. Unum est enim corpus adversum intus ac foris.205 And on her forehead a name written, a mystery: Babylon the Great, the mother of the fornications and abominations of the earth (Rev 17:5). It is not a false belief that the sign on her forehead conveys, but hypocrisy. Moreover, the Spirit related what is written on the forehead of the woman; for who would openly put such an inscription? Indeed, he said that it was a mystery, which has been interpreted, saying: And I saw the woman drunk from the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs for Jesus (Rev 17:6). For the adverse body, inside and out, is one.

Tyconius explains that the name mystery on the harlot’s forehead is not her initiative but that of the Spirit. She seeks to remain hidden, but the Spirit in the Scriptures reveals her real identity. For the author of the Expositio Apocalypseos this is a clear echo of the “mystery of evil” in 2 Thess 2:7a. This mystery can only be detected by a wise person who is led and inspired by the Spirit and does not pretend to live in the truth. The perspective, from which Tyconius receives the most enigmatic phrase of 2 Thessalonians 2, τὸ μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας, reveals something both about the context in which he lives and about his theological orientation. The exegete’s focus on the problem of lovelessness between Christian communities and its binding with the motif of the “mystery of evil” suggests that he established the theology of his historical time. Everything that happens in the church – persecutions, violence, divisiveness, hatred – is the fruit of the “mystery of evil,” that is to say, of the evil presence of the false brothers in the church. Through them, the “Man of sin” undermines and hurts the church from within, waiting for the day of an open, final persecution. Tyconius underlines the mysterious character of evil, but somehow attempts to explain the significance of its existence and the ‘usefulness’ of its activity throughout history. Two important messages emerge from his reception of 2 Thess 2:7a. The first one is an instruction for the faithful Christians on how to become saints. By co-existing with the “mystery of evil” and overcoming it with love, they are purified and proved worthy of eternal communion with God. The second message is a solution to the problem of condemnation. It is not God who separates the false brothers from himself, but they themselves, abusing their own freedom, hate God and find him unworthy of being with them. This act of human dereliction toward God is, actually, a participation in the act of the evil spirits who rejected God and his laws. That is why Tyconius often clusters the motif 205

EA VI, 71–8.

148

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

of mysterium facinoris with Eph 6:12, underlining its diabolic roots, which the false brothers in their blindness seem not to notice. The mysteries of Scripture, which the true brothers are able to recognise, are twofold: the mystery of God and the mystery of evil, or practically one: the mystery of God that includes in itself and controls the activity of evil that exists only in the span of a limited time. Tyconius recognises in the “mystery of evil” the “abomination of desolation” of which the prophet Daniel speaks (Dan 9:27; cf. Matt 24:15), precisely because it is installed in the holy place206 (cf. 2 Thess 2:4), that is, in the church. The attention Tyconius gives to this motif shows its importance in the fourth century Northern Africa church. He interprets Revelation in this light, shifting the eschatological passages into the present reality. The evil activity of the false members of the church is the dominant theme which the exegete notes in the last book of the canon. 2.2 Detineat/detinet The opening words of 2 Thess 2:6, καὶ νῦν (“and now”)207 mark the shift from the author’s considerations of future events (vv. 3–4) to the current situation of the Thessalonians: καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ. τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας· μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται. And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed when his time comes. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed.

Also, the adverbs – ἤδη (“already”) and ἄρτι (“just now”) of the following v. 7 – emphasise the present experience of the community. In vv. 6a and 7b, we find two vague terms: the first is the neuter participle, τὸ κατέχον (“restraining force”), and the other the masculine participle, ὁ κατέχων (“restrainer”). From the composition of the pericope, it is quite clear that the first concept refers to the “Man of Lawlessness,” whose Revelation is regulated by this secret force, and the second one pertains to the timeframe of the “mystery of lawlessness.” The Thessalonians seem to understand these enigmatic terms,208 but for both ancient and modern readers it is crux interpretum. It is not the goal of our study to focus on these widely analysed verses, but some scholarly opinions can help us to understand the complexity of the problem. Paul Metzger, in his work Katechon. II Thess. 2,1–12 im Horizont apokalyptischen Denkens, makes a comprehensive study of the history of research (Forschungsgeschichte) on the

Cf. LR I, 107; EA II, 3542; V, 468, 475. See the discussion on νῦν in Wolfgang Trilling, Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher, EKK 14 (Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980), 88. 208 Giblin proposes that the verb οἴδατε (“you know”) suggests a special kind of experiential knowledge. See Giblin, The Threat to Faith, 159–66. 206 207

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body

149

Katechon.209 It has been understood in many ways: as the Roman Empire, as the grace of the Holy Spirit that postpones the wrath of God, as a force determining God’s salvific activity or the time of the church’s mission, as angelic or demonic forces, or simply as the undefined idea of the author of 2 Thessalonians who in the situation of the delay of the parousia inserts an ad hoc principle that does not align with the early Christian expectations regarding the Last Days, in order to explain the problem of this time before the end. Otto Betz examines the concept of the Katechon in light of other texts, determining its place in Paul’s theology as a whole. He notes that the so-called Qumran Book of Mysteries (1Q27) and the book of Daniel (e.g., 9:24–27) or even Romans 13 suggest the Roman empire as the restraining force. If this is applicable to the author of 2 Thessalonians 2 then, according to Betz, his apocalyptic plan is no longer relevant, because Roman Emperor Claudius died in 54 CE without the Antichrist or the end times coming.210 August Strobel proposed to understand the Katechon merely as a terminus technichus that indicates the “postponement of the parousia envisaged in God’s universal plan” and thus, as such, is devoid of “a more precise content.”211 He bases his opinion on theological grounds, finding an analogy in the vision of the delay in Hab 2:3 and 2 Thess 2:6.7, and in the terms ‫‘( רַחָא‬to delay,’ ‘tarry’ or ‘defer’) and Katechon.212 Tonstad notes that “this text in Habakkuk achieved the status of an eschatological key function outside the New Testament in terms of explaining the timing of God’s purpose.”213 Many scholars have followed Strobel’s conviction,214 but others have proposed different solutions. For example, Enno Popkes recognises the Apostle Paul in the Katechon,215 while Colin Nicholl sees there the Archangel Michael.216 A novel interpretation has been offered by Lambertus Lietaert Peerbolte, who sees the question of the Katechon as a rhetorical device used by the author without a more precise content. He also believes that the author only apparently, in v. 5, 209 For the overview of the reception of this motif see Paul Metzger, Katechon. II Thess 2,1–12 im Horizont apokalyptischen Denkens, BZNW 135 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005); Röcker, Belial und Katechon, 417–73; Nicklas, Der zweite Thessalonicherbrief, 140–50. 210 See Otto Betz, “Der Katechon,” New Testament Studies 9.3 (1963), 276–91. 211 August Strobel, Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem auf Grund der spätjüdisch-urchristlichen Geschichte von Habakuk 2,2ff, NovTSup 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1961), 101. 212 See ibid., 103. 213 Tonstad, “The Restainer Removed,” 133–51. 214 Trilling, Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher; Georg Strecker, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Bearbeitet, ergänzt und herausgegeben von Friedrich Wilhelm Horn) (Berlin – New York: de Gruyter, 1996); Paul-Gerhard Müller, Der Erste und der Zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher, RNT (Regensburg: Pustet, 2001). 215 Enno E. Popkes, “Die Bedeutung des zweiten Thessalonicherbriefs für das Verständnis paulinischer und deuteropaulinischer Eschatologie,” BZ 48 (2004): 62. 216 Colin R. Nicholl, “Michael, the Restrainer removed (2 Thess 2:6–7),” JThS.NS 51 (2000): 33.

150

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

had instructed the Thessalonians on this evil, eschatological figure. According to Peerbolte this remark serves to create the literary fiction of a common knowledge shared by the author and the Thessalonians and the reason for postponement of the coming of the “Man of Lawlessness” is communicated in those indefinite terms, which the editor himself seems not to know, hoping that the recipients of the letter will then give meaning to those concepts.217 Glenn Holland underlines that the Katechon and the “Lawless One” share certain characteristics: the time of both is granted to them by God; both begin as a force (τὸ κατέχον – τὸ μυστήριον) and end as a person (ὁ κατέχων – ὁ ἄνομος); both appear to be human-demonic essences that play their part in God’s plan of salvation.218 Metzger, however, notes that even if they have some elements in common, these two forces oppose each other. As long as the Katechon is active, God’s Adversary cannot take over and work through the μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας. From this, Metzger defines the Katechon as a negative factor in God’s plan of salvation that only serves for the postponement of the parousia. It/he does not provide protection to the recipients of the letter, but prolongs their time of suffering. They have to wait until the neutral Katechon personifies itself in the male Katechon and is eventually removed.219 Röcker has quite a different point of view concerning the problem of the Katechon. He argues, as we have mentioned in the introduction, that the terms “Man of Lawlessness” and the “Son of Destruction” (2 Thess 2:3) can be interpreted in light of the OT-Jewish Belial texts and the “Lawless One” (2 Thess 2:8) can be identified with Belial (‫)לַעַּיִלְב‬. Based on that interpretation Röcker understands the Katechon in this traditional context. He concludes that both the masculine and the neutral participles refer to two quantities in the sense of a “double causality”: the Katechon consists of God and his preacher (e.g. Paul) who are quasi-combined and the Katechon means also the proclamation of the Gospel (call to repentance) and the plan of salvation.220 Józef Kaczewski proposes a similar interpretation, and sees faith in the mysterious powers that hold back the parousia of the “Lawless One,” which allows Christians to persevere, and Christ, who is both the master and the dispenser of this faith.221 Also Tonstad, who examines the terms “Lawless One” (v. 8) and the “restrainer” (v. 6) in the context of biblical prophecy

217 Cf. Lambertus J. Lietaert Peerbolte, “The KATÉXON/KATÉXΩN of 2 Thess. 2:6– 7,” Novum Testamentum 39 (1997): 148–49. 218 Cf. Holland, The Tradition that You Received from Us, 112. 219 See Paul Metzger, “Il Katéchon. Una fondazione esegetica,” in Il Katéchon (2 Tes 2, 6–7) e l’Anticristo. Teologia e politica di fronte al mistero dell’anomia (Brescia, Morcelliana, 2008–9), 33–34. 220 Röcker, Belial und Katechon, 471–88. 221 Józef Kaczewski, “To katechon – ho katechon (2 Tes 2,6–7). Krytyka nowych rozwiązań i własna propozycja,” Analecta Cracoviensia 24 (1992): 153–70.

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body

151

(especially Isa 14:12–20 and Hab 2:3), comes to the conclusion that the first one is Satan or his representative, and the latter designates God.222 The identity of the restrainer remains an open question, or rather a mystery, which scholars can only attempt to uncover. We shall now come back to Tyconius and explore his understanding of these cryptic terms. The VL translates τὸ κατέχον as quid teneat (Type X), quid detineat (Type D) or quod detinet (Types J, I, V) and ὁ κατέχων as qui tenet (Types X, V) or qui teneat (Type D).223 Tyconius generally follows some of these forms, but he also presents his own variants. In the fourth rule of the Liber Regularum, we find the expression, “Felix est qui obtinebit” from Ps 137:9, that corresponds to the phrase of 2 Thess 2:7b “qui obtinet” (“who restrains / takes hold of”) a few lines later: Omnia spiritaliter, sicut de eadem Babylonia scriptum est: Felix est qui obtinebit et conlidet parvulos tuos ad petram. Neque enim regem Medorum quod obtinuerit adversum Babylonem dixit felicem, et non Ecclesiam quae obtinet et conlidet filios Babylonis ad petram scandali. Obtinet autem, sicut scriptum est: Qui obtinet modo, donec de medio fiat.224 All things are to be considered spiritually, just as it is written about this same Babylon: Happy is he who shall take hold of and shall dash your little ones against the rock (Ps 137:9). For he did not call the king of the Medes happy because the king may have persevered against Babylon, and not the church which shall take hold of and shall dash the children of Babylon against the stumbling stone (cf. 1 Pet 2:8; Rom 9:32–33; 1 Cor 1:23). But he shall take hold, just as it is written: He who now takes hold, then will he come from the midst (2 Thess 2:7bc).

This text, as Tyconius emphasises, has to be understood not as a historical event, but in a spiritual way, according to the thinking of the Rule On Species and Genus. The historical fact of Babylon’s conquest by the king of Medes ca. 612 B.C. allows him to create figurative language in order to speak about the spiritual reality. The city of Babylon symbolises all the nations of the world who oppose God, that is, the evil members of the bipartite church.225 The king of Medes, who “persevered (obtinuerit) against Babylon,” and his brutal fight with the “children of Babylon” are figurative images of the church’s perseverance in her bipartite situation and her warfare with the inner enemies. The true See Tonstad, “The Restainer Removed,” 133–51. VL, vol. 25:1, 332, 335. “Type X is a special indication for sources where the Latin biblical text appears to be an ad hoc translation of a Greek sources.” Hugh A.G. Houghton, “Scripture and Latin Christian Manuscripts from North Africa,” in Yates and Dupont, The Bible in Christian North Africa, 20. 224 LR IV, 19.114–20. 225 Cf. LR IV, 1819–20: “Babylon civitas adversa Hierusalem totus mundus est, qui in parte sua, quam in hac Hierusalem habet, convenitur.” (“The city of Babylon is the whole world against Jerusalem, which agrees in that part of it which Jerusalem holds in this”); 19.120–23: “Et post multa speciei et generis in clausula periochae aperte ostendit omnes gentes esse Babylonem et eas in terra atque in montibus suis, id est in Ecclesia, perdere.” (“And after many species and genus in the conclusion of the summary, he openly shows that all nations are Babylon and that they are lost on earth and also in his mountains, that is, in the church”). 222 223

152

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

church continually performs the spiritual slaughter of the evil in her midst, which will be completely eliminated at the moment of her final separation from the false brothers. In this context, therefore, Tyconius considers the bipartite church as the restraining force that “takes hold” (obtinet) of her wicked and unrighteous members. The truth of Christ will be their stumbling block, that is, the cause of their destruction. As we have seen, for Tyconius the bipartite condition of the Lord’s body is a deep mystery, which happens continually in the church and in the essence of the human being. In the seventh Rule, he quotes 2 Thess 2:6–8, but this time he uses the verb detinet in reference to the church: Et per Ezechielem item ex reliquiis populi mali sic dicit Deus adducere super populum suum partem eiusdem populi, quod est mysterium facinoris.… Hoc autem geritur a passione Domini, quoadusque de medio eiusdem mysterii facinoris discedat Ecclesia quae detinet, ut in tempore suo detegatur impietas, sicut apostolus dicit: Et nunc quid detineat scitis, ut in suo tempore detegatur. Mysterium enim iam operatur facinoris, tantum ut qui detinens detinet modo, quoadusque de medio fiat; et tunc revelabitur ille impius.226 And also through Ezekiel, God says that from the remaining evil people he will bring a part of them against his own people, which is a mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7a). However, this is produced by [from the time of] the suffering of the Lord, until from the midst of this same mystery of evil the church gives up the things which it is detaining, in order that in his time impiety may be exposed, just as the apostle says: And now you know what detains, so that in his time he may be revealed. For the mystery of evil is already at work, until he who detains now is taken out of the way; and then that impious one will be revealed (2 Thess 2:6–8).

In contrast to his predecessors, the exegete, does not consider the Roman Empire as τὸ κατέχον and Constantine or any other Emperor as ὁ κατέχων.227 For LR VII, 4.315–17.5–11. Burkitt considers the detinens detinet as the phenomena of dictography and reduces it to a simple detinet. See Burkitt, The Book of Rules, xlviii–lii. 227 Tertullian (ca. 150–230) and Hippolyte of Rome (ca. 170–235) are the oldest witnesses to the interpretation of 2 Thess 2:6–7 in connection with the Roman Empire. Tertullian seems to be the first one to establish this connection in the light of the end times. In his Apologeticus 32 (PL 1.508–09) Tertullian says that Christians should pray for the Roman emperor: “there is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that the mighty shock impending over the whole earth – in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes – is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome’s duration.” Similarly, he does the same in Ad Scapulam 2.6 (CCSL 2.1128): “A Christian is an enemy of no one, much less of the emperor. Since he knows him to be appointed by his own God, he must love, reverence, honour, and wish him well, together with the whole Roman Empire, as long as the world shall last. For, so long the Roman Empire itself will last.” Interestingly, some thirty years earlier, Irenaeus of Lyons, though citing 2 Thess 2:1–12 in the context of the figure of the Antichrist does not even consider vv. 6–7 and makes no reference to Katechon as the reality that prevents the coming of the Antichrist. Irenaeus sees in Rome an apocalyptic whore “drunk with the blood of the saints” (Rev 17:6), somehow de-eschatologizing the empire. In Tertullian, we find a semantic dependence between the textual data that the Book of Revelation places 226

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body

153

him, they represent the antiChristian world and do not have the authority to regulate spiritual matters. The state of the bipartition in the church restrains the appearance of the “Man of sin,” that is, the visibility of the false brothers. The true part of the church, obedient to God’s times and decisions, restrains the freedom of the evil part, allowing it only the activity that is foreseen in God’s wisdom. We find a similar reception of this minor motif in Tyconius’ Expositio Apocalypseos. For example, in Rev 7:1, the “four angels standing on the four corners of the earth and four winds of the earth” represent the bipartite church. As there are four good and four bad angels, there are also four good winds (cf. Ezek 37:9) that create the breath of the church and four bad winds (cf. Dan 7:2– 3) that form the adverse breath.228 Tyconius’ play on such terms like “wind” or “breath” is another way of speaking about the spiritual reality. Both sides of the church coexist together, but the evil part, although it is now allowed to be active, is restrained by the good part. These images clearly echo the exegete’s

as an impediment to the ultimate manifestation of the Antichrist and vv. 6–7 which speak about Katechon. In De resurrectione carnis 24.17, Tertullian translates the Greek τὸ κατέχον as “quid teneat” and ὁ κατέχων as “qui nunc tenet teneat,” that is, “the one that now restrains, let him keep restraining.” Tertullian’s translation of ὁ κατέχων which is later followed by other church fathers presents the Roman empire and its emperors as the restraining force in regard to the coming of the Antichrist. This can be seen in his comment: “quis, nisi Romanus status, cuius abscessio in decem reges dispersa Antichristum superducet?” (“What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon [its own ruins]?”) which clearly refers to Rev 17:3.12–14. This apocalyptic text identifies the “ten horns of the beast” with “ten kings” who have yet to arise and whose goal is to hand over the full power to the beast, that is, to the Antichrist. See De resurrectione carnis 25.1 (PL 2.830–31). For Hippolyte, the Roman empire is in Daniel 7 the fourth among the expected world’s empires. As long as it remains in existence, the parousia and the final judgment cannot occur. See Commentarius in Danielem 4.21.3 (GCS 1.239). In the fourth century Lactantius (died in 325) in his Divinae institutiones 7.25, still cultivates the same idea of the empire as Katechon: “The subject itself declares that the fall and ruin of the world will shortly take place; except that while the city of  Rome  remains it appears that nothing of this kind is to be feared. But when that capital of the world shall have fallen, and shall have begun to be a street, which the Sibyls say shall come to pass, who can doubt that the end has now arrived to the affairs of men and the whole world? It is that city, that city only, which still sustains all things; and the God of heaven is to be entreated by us and implored — if, indeed, His arrangements and decrees can be delayed — lest, sooner than we think, that detestable tyrant should come who will undertake so great a deed, and dig out that eye, by the destruction of which the world itself is about to fall.” John Chrysostom (ca. 349–407) links the imperial Katechon to the four-kingdom sequence of Daniel and sees the Roman Empire as the fourth kingdom. In his homily on 2 Thessalonians, he says that the Roman Empire will be brought to an end by the empire (basileia) of the Antichrist, who in turn will be suppressed by Christ. See In Epistolam Secundum ad Thessalonicenses Commentarius, Homilia 4 (PG 62.485–91). 228 See EA II, 446–16.

154

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

understanding of the Katechon, and the verb tenere corresponds to the other forms mentioned above: Qui sunt quattuor angeli, idem quattuor intellegendi sunt venti, ac si diceret: Vidi quattuor angelos tenentes quattuor angelos aut vidi quattuor ventos tenentes quattuor ventos. Isti autem angeli vel venti bipertiti sunt.229 What the four angels are, the same should be understood for the four winds, as if he said: I saw four angels holding the four angels or I saw four winds holding the four winds. Moreover, these angels or winds are bipartite.

In the subsequent comments, Tyconius makes an important connection between Rev 9:14–15 and 2 Thess 2:6–8a, following his apocalyptic pattern: the present activity of the “mystery of evil,” its restrainment, and its future Revelation in the church. If the mystery of the “Man of sin” is, at present, held back in the church, it must also be released and separated from her in the future: At ubi omnis Israel in fine mundi saluus factus fuerit, fiet de medio eius quam detinet, et tunc pars quarta angelorum soluta in suo tempore aperietur, sicut apostolus dicit: Et nunc quid detineat scitis, ut in suo tempore denudetur; mysterium enim facinoris iam operatur; tantum qui detinens detinet modo, quoadusque de medio fiat, et tunc revelabitur ille impius. Non est enim regnum cui deputentur falsi fratres, quia saeculi reges omnes mali dicuntur.230 But when all Israel will be saved (Rom 11:26) at the end of the world, [the mystery of evil] will separate from the [part] which it holds [within itself] (2 Thess 2:7b), and then in his own time a fourth part of the angels that are released (cf. Rev 9:14–15) will be manifested, as the Apostle says: And you know what now restrains him, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of evil is already working; only he who restrains him is now holding him until he comes from the midst. And then that wicked one will be revealed (2 Thess 2:6–8a). For there is not a [particular] kingdom to which false brothers belong, since all worldly kings are called wicked.

By now, we can notice that Tyconius sees the narrative of Revelation not as a chronological account of future events, but as a series of recapitulations which in various ways narrate the whole time of the church’s warfare in history.231 EA II, 443–6. EA II, 4416–24. 231 According to Tyconius, the text of Revelation is recapitulating at 4:1, 7:1, 8:1, 10:1, 11:19, 15:1, 16:1, 16:12, 17:1, 19:11, 20:1, and 20:11. It is worth noting that in his exegesis of the Book of Revelation Victorinus of Pettau was the first one who, besides “spiritual” chiliasm, introduced the so-called recapitulation theory, a key aspect of the structure of the whole Book. According to this hermeneutical principle, the Revelation of John should not be seen as a description of a series of events that follow one another in time, but rather as the presentation of the same thing in seven different ways, that is, recapitulation of what has already been said before. Victorinus applies this principle after the opening of the seventh seal in Rev 8:1 and says: “Nec requirendus est ordo in Apocalypsi, sed intellectus requirendus” (“Do not seek the temporal order in the Apocalypse, but look for the inner meaning”). See Commentarius in Apocalypsin 8.2, Victorin de Poetovio: Sur l’Apocalypse et autres écrits 88, trans. Martine Dualey (SC 423.15–41). See Robert S.J. Daly, Apocalyptic Thought in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 101–5; Konrad Huber, “Aspekte der Apokalypse-Interpretation des Victorinus von Pettau am Beispiel der Christusvision in 229 230

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body

155

In the present time, the body of the devil wages war within the body of the Lord through the “mystery of evil” that is, however, held back. Several other synonymous terms, on which Tyconius operates, echo this minor motif of Katechon. Between the two advents of Christ, the devil’s freedom to harm the church (cf. Rev 7:3) is limited or bound, and his actions are only allowed if they serve God’s purposes: Manifestum est diabolum esse alligatum et pedibus ecclesiae subiectum.… Ligatus est itaque diabolus in corpore suo, ne seducat nationes credentes in quattuor angulis terrae, id est ecclesiam, quae corpus est Christi.232 It is obvious that the devil is bound and subjected under the feet of the church.… And so, the devil is bound in his own body, that he should not deceive the believing nations (cf. Rev 20:2–3) in the four corners of the earth, that is, the church, which is the body of Christ.

The bad angels from Rev 7:1 are the same angels in Rev 9:14, who were bound at the great river Euphrates in Babylon, and are to be loosed at the last struggle. They represent the body of the devil in the church: Flumen enim Eufraten populum persecutorem dixit, in quo Satanas et propria voluntas ligata est, ne ante tempus faciat quod perficere magno opere desiderat.233 For the Euphrates River signifies the persecuting people, in which Satan and his will are bound so that he does not do before the time what he desires to accomplish on a grade scale.

The plan of Satan, which is defined as the great work (“magna opera”) of the last persecution, is going to be smashed, though now he is sure of his victory. His will is to be fulfilled only in those who surrender to his body. It seems that the devil becomes the executor of God’s judgment on the false brothers, who now still have a chance for repentance. Actually, Tyconius again emphasises that the locus of evil is not the church as such, but the hearts of the believers who form the church. Evil is not an abstraction, but a concrete fusion of spiritual and human decision: Ergo stella cecidit de caelo et accepit clauem putei abyssi, id est potestatem cordis sui, ut aperiat cor suum, in quo diabolus deligatus compescitur, et faciat voluntatem suam.234 Therefore, a star fell from heaven and received the key to the bottomless pit, that is, the power of its own heart, that it may open its own heart, in which the devil, bound, is confined that it may do his will.

The “mystery of evil” happens, above all, in the inner sanctuary of the human being, whose will has a capacity to restrain the devil’s domination over it. We can, therefore, speak about the bipartite condition of the believer or even his bipartite nature, since he in himself has to be confronted with the reality of God and the reality of the devil: Offb  1,” in Interpretations of “Violent Texts” in the Apocalypse, eds. Joseph Verheyden, Tobias Nicklas, and Andreas Merkt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 94–117. 232 EA II, 4712–13.15–18. 233 EA III, 3823–26. 234 EA III, 204–7.

156

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

Habentes super se regem angelum abyssi, id est diabolum vel regem huius saeculi; abyssus enim populus est, in quo diabolus in occulto cordis eorum ligatus tenetur, et rex huius saeculi perspicue principatur.235 They have a king over them, the angel of the abyss (Rev 9:11), that is, the devil or the king of this world (cf. 2 Cor 4:4). For the abyss is the people in whom the devil is held bound in the hidden place of their heart, and [in whom] the king of this world is visibly ruling.

Tyconius’ attention to this minor motif clearly shows that he does not focus on the distinction between the neuter and masculine forms of the Katechon. He simply identifies this concept with the good part of the church, and more precisely, with the good part of the human being, which is able to restrain the “Man of sin” in himself. According to the African exegete, the striving for dominion and violence, which characterises the Roman Empire, is the symbol of an antiChristian attitude and it cannot be a positive force that regulates the mysteries of God. The exegete makes believers aware of the power that they have received from God to bind the devil and his secret plans, both on the communal and personal levels. 2.3 Secundum operationem Satanae In v. 9, the author of 2 Thessalonians 2 speaks once again about the future Revelation of the “Lawless one” who, by imitating the Lord Jesus, will have his own parousia:236 οὗ ἐστιν ἡ παρουσία κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν τοῦ σατανᾶ ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει καὶ σημείοις καὶ τέρασιν ψεύδους whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all the power and signs and wonders of falsehood

Satan, as the supernatural power, energises the “mystery of lawlessness” (v. 7a) and empowers the “Man of Lawlessness” in his deceptive and destructive work. The evil and malicious character of this deception237 leads to unrighteousness (cf. v. 12).238 We can notice an important shift from the coming of the “Lawless one” to those who are negatively affected by his parousia (cf. vv. 10b–12). The text may refer to the persecutors of the Thessalonian believers (cf. 2  Thess 1),239 who are comforted by the certainty of God’s judgment over the “Man of Lawlessness” and his followers. It seems that the author of the letter sees the destruction of the wicked not only as a future event, but as a process that has already begun. The eschatological enemy leads his devotees to the destruction

EA III, 361–4. See Morris, The First and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, 232; Nicklas, Der zweite Thessalonicherbrief, 155. 237 See Bauer, BDAG, 99. 238 See Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, 222. 239 See Gaventa, First and Second Thessalonians, 115–16. 235 236

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body

157

for which he himself is destined.240 Their own disbelief in the truth of God’s existence revealed in creation241 and in the Gospel message,242 is the reason for such a dramatic end (v. 10b). This is the only place in the NT where we find the expression “love of the truth,” which would suggest that the Gospel cannot be accepted only on the intellectual level, but it has to be embraced with love and sincere devotion.243 The deception of the “Man of Lawlessness” makes such people incapable of loving the truth of Christ. We find direct quotations of 2 Thess 2:9 once in the Liber Regularum and once in the Expositio Apocalypseos. Throughout his works, however, Tyconius emphasises in various ways the manipulations and domination of the devil over those who belong to him.244 The devil is the head who plans and organises all the operations of his body and, at the same time, gradually disposes his followers to assume a diabolic character. The devil’s actions are noteworthy not only in Tyconius’ frequent use of the terms “hypocrisy” and “simulation,” which emphasise the obscurity of the demoniac activity, but also in the attitude of the false brothers who spiritually persecute the church.245 This concept and the vocabulary clearly echo the motif of the false signs and wonders, mentioned in 2 Thess 2:9, which are generated by the head and performed by the members of the devil’s body.246 That is why we assert that Tyconius considers this verse important and inspirational for his theology and that it should be regarded as a minor motif that supports the discussion on the operation of the “mystery of evil” within the body of the Lord. In the first Rule of the Liber Regularum, Tyconius, likely referring to the Gospel of Matthew, says that the Lord “can be imitated by an enemy body with signs and prodigies.”247 This reference is linked to the warning about the false Messiahs who will come in Jesus’ name (cf. Matt 24:4–5), by which the See Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 307. See Trilling, Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher, 110; Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 203. 242 Paul often uses the word “truth” as a synonym for the Gospel. See, for example, 2 Cor 4:2, 13:8; Gal 2:5, 14; 5:7; Eph 1:13; Col 1:5, 6. The same verb “receive” was used twice in 1 Thessalonians in reference to the church’s acceptance of “the word,” that is, the Gospel (1:6; 2:13). 243 See Weima, 1–2 Thessalonians, 542. 244 On the theme of the false brothers see, for example, LR III, 26, 29; IV 19.2; VI, 4.1, 4.4; VII, 3.3, 4.1, 14.1, 16.1. 245 Origen writes extensively about the continuous coming of the Antichrist with deceptions and simulation, cf. Commentariorum series in Matthaeum 33 (GSC 38.59–64); Commentarii in Iohannem 32.214 (SC 385.276–78). 246 The motif of false signs and wonders performed by false christs and prophets is also found in Matt 24:21–28. It is quite clear that Tyconius had in mind this text as well, but his multiple references to the devil or Satan would suggest 2 Thess 2:9 as the main source text for the development of the theme of hypocrisy and the false imitation of Christ and his body. 247 LR I, 91’–2’: “qui ab inimico corpore signis et prodigiis imitari potest.” 240 241

158

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

exegete means: in the name of the Lord’s body.248 The enemy body is counted, by Tyconius, among the hypocrites (cf. Matt 24:46.48.51)249 who, trying to hide the truth about themselves, deceive the real members of the church. The author of the Liber Regularum further develops this minor motif by recalling the example of the two brothers, Esau and Jacob. The first one symbolises the evil persons250 who pretend to be like the good part of Jacob who, in turn, represents both good and false members of the church.251 Tyconius notes that the biblical author does not say that Jacob supplanted Esau in the womb, but he supplanted his brother, desiring to emphasise that the righteous brother replaced the unrighteous brother within the bipartite body of Jacob. This image refers to the future reality which, however, takes place spiritually at the present time, through the continuous tension between opposing brothers within the body of the church.252 The false brothers, already equated with Esau, the body of sin, or the “Son of Destruction,” constitute one and the same reality of evil, which is energised by Satan for the purpose of rejecting the truth of the church and deceiving her members. They pretend to be brothers,253 but their real identification with the devil makes them incapable of brotherly love: corpus peccati, filius exterminii in mysterium facinoris, qui veniunt secundum operationem Satanae in omni virtute, signis et prodigiis falsitatis, spiritalia nequitiae in caelestibus, quos Dominus Christus quem in carne persecuntur interficiet spiritu oris sui et destruet manifesta-

See LR I, 93’–4’. See LR II, 1210–14. 250 See LR IV, 12, 19.2; VII, 3.3–4.1. 251 See LR III, 27.123–24. 252 Tyconius’ original treatment of the Jacob-Esau motif illustrates the complexity of his ecclesiology. See LR III, 27.122–24.1–4–27.21: “Esau autem ubique signum est et nomen malorum, Iacob autem utrorumque, illa ratione quod pars mala simulet se Iacob et sint duo sub uno nomine. Pars autem bona non potest se simulare Esau: inde est hoc nomen malorum tantum, illud vero bipertitum. Ceterum de libero arbitrio nec Iacob omne semen bonum nec Esau omne malum, sed ex utroque utrumque. Ex Abraham ita bipertitum semen ostensum est.” (“Esau is everywhere a sign and a name of the evil persons, but Jacob of both good and evil; for that reason, the evil part makes itself like Jacob and the two parts exist under the one name. But the good part cannot make itself like Esau: thence, the latter name belongs to the evil ones only, but the former name is bipartite. Otherwise, from free will are neither all the good seed from Jacob not all the evil ones from Esau, but both types of seed are from both. Thus, from Abraham the bipartite seed was shown”). The principle which Tyconius applies here assumes that there are “two cities,” but both are, in a sense, bipartite. Jacob is bipartite, because there are hypocrites and false sons within the line of the promise but among the physical descendants of Esau are some who by free will choose to believe and obey. Tyconius in this way demonstrates that there is no perfect purity in the church – not all the good are in Jacob, nor are all the evil in Esau. 253 Cf. LR III, 2917–18: “simulent se fratres et in paradiso nostro velut Dei filios ludere.” (“make themselves like brothers and play in our Paradise”). 248 249

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body

159

tione adventus sui. Tempus est enim quo haec non in mysteriis sed aperte dicantur, inminente discessione quod est revelatio hominis peccati, discendente Loth a Sodomis.254 the body of sin (cf. 2 Thess 2:3c), the Son of Destruction (2 Thess 2:3c) in the mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7a), they come by Satan’s work with all power and with false signs and wonders (2 Thess 2:9); they are the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavens (Eph 6:12), whom the Lord Christ, whom they persecuted in the flesh, will kill with the breath of his mouth and destroy when he comes in open manifestation (2 Thess 2:8). For there is a time when these things may be said not in mystery but openly, as that departure approaches which is the Revelation of the Man of sin when Lot departs from Sodom.

The notion of deceitfulness, simulation or hypocrisy abounds in Tyconius’ comments, because he tries to demonstrate that the entirety of the anti-Christ’s world is constructed on lies. Satan, with God’s permission, has the time and power to influence the will of those who reject Christ, extinguishing in them the light of truth and ‘inflaming’ in them the darkness of falsehood. 2 Thess 2:9 is here directly linked with Eph 6:12, which, in Tyconius’ exegetical strategy, directs the readers’ attention even more intensely to the demoniac world hidden behind evil human affairs. For Tyconius, lies and simulation are strongly connected with the concept of the Antichrist.255 In fact, he states in the sixth Rule that the apostle John wrote his letter specifically about the good and evil brothers.256 Those who pretend to practice Christian love comprise the Antichrist. In this context, we notice an echo of 2 Thess 2:9: Dominum autem Christum Antichristus non voto sed occasione praedicat. Alio tendens per Christi nomen ingreditur, quo sibi viam sternat, quo sub Christi nomine ventri pareat, et his – quae turpe est dicere – sanctitatis et simplicitatis nomen imponat, signis et prodigiis cubiculorum opera Christum esse adseverans.257 The Antichrist was preaching that Christ is Lord, not out of commitment but as a pretence. Holding to another, he enters by the name of Christ, by which he paves a way for himself, by which he may fulfil the wishes of his belly under the name of Christ, and – what a disgraceful thing it is to say – upon these he imposes the name of sanctity and simplicity, asserting with signs and wonders of the inner chambers, that these are the works of Christ (cf. 2 Thess 2:9; Matt 24:24.26).

The perfidiousness of the Antichrist does not fail to use the divine truths for his own dark purposes. Hiding behind the name of Christ who is love, and binding with Satan whose name is hatred, is a perfect camouflage for deceiving the members of the church. The seventh Rule, On the Devil and his Body, evidently exposes the wrong attitude of the false brothers who, stimulated by the devil, pretend to be like God by obscuring the truth and asserting duplicitous lies.258 LR III, 295–12. See LR VI, 4.1–4.4. 256 Cf. LR VI, 4.116–17: “in omni ipsa epistula, qua non nisi de fratribus bonis et malis scripsit.” 257 LR VI, 4.44–9. 258 See LR VII, 17.118–26. 254 255

160

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

In Tyconius’ comments on Rev 13:2 in his Expositio Apocalypseos, we find the second direct usage of 2 Thess 2:9, in this case combined with v. 10a. The beast, in general, designates anyone who opposes the Lamb, but from the context the reader must discern if the text refers to the devil, his body, or both.259 The beast from the sea represents the devil’s body as a whole and, more particularly, the devil’s dwelling in the church in the form of the false brothers.260 The strength of the beast comes from the dragon, that is, from the devil himself, who as the head is united with his body: Et bestia quam vidi similis erat pardo, et pedes eius sicut ursi, et os eius sicut leonis. Pardo propter varietatem gentium similavit, urso propter malitiam et vesaniam, leoni propter virtutem corporis et linguae superbiam. Et dedit ei draco virtutem suam et sedem suam. Sic apostolus de diaboli corpore loquens: Cuius est, inquit, adventus secundum operationem Satanae in omni virtute et signis et prodigiis mendacii his qui pereunt.261 And the beast which I saw was similar to a leopard, and his feet like those of a bear, and his mouth like that of a lion (Rev 13:2a). He compared [the beast] to a leopard because of the variety of nations, to a bear because of its malice and ferocity, and to a lion because of its strength of body and arrogance in speech. And the dragon gave to him his power and his throne (Rev 13:2b). In the same way the Apostle, speaking about the body of the devil, says: His coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders for those who are perishing (2 Thess 2:9–10a).

The description of the beast tells us something about the nature of the false brothers. Their acting with malice, ferocity and arrogance reflects the attitude of the “Man of sin” (cf. 2 Thess 2:3–4). In Tyconius’ thought, the hypocrites are present not only in Africa, among the Donatists and the Caecilianists, but in the whole world, because it is a spiritual matter. In his Expositio Apocalypseos, the author, even more strongly than in the Liber Regularum, focuses on the attitude of the false brothers, often characterised as hypocrisy. The external pseudo-signs and wonders, which they wish to be seen, have nothing in common with the truth of Christ. They consider Satan as their idol,262 though they seem to possess “a white stone,” that is, baptism and Cf. EA IV, 257–9: “Bestia autem generale nomen est contrarium agno, sed in narratione pro locis intellegendum est quam partem bestiae dicat.” (“Moreover, ‘beast’ is a general term in contrast to a lamb. But in the narrative, it must be understood, from the passages, to which part of the beast he is referring”). 260 Cf. EA IV, 2513–14: “Nunc ergo bestiam ascendentem de mari corpus diaboli dicit.” (“Therefore, now he calls the body of the devil a beast coming up out of the sea”). Tyconius applies here the logic of the seventh mystic Rule, On the Devil and His Body, which explains the transition from head to body (cf. LR VII, 12–5). 261 EA IV, 2716–19–281–4. 262 Cf. EA I, 223–5: “Omni ecclesiae dicit, quia ubique Satanas habitat; thronus autem Satanae homines mali sunt.” (“He speaks to every church because Satan lives everywhere; moreover, evil people are the throne of Satan”); 2310–14: “Haec duo sunt principalia quibus fruendis hypocritae militant, edere et fornicari, sicut dominus dicit: Intus autem pleni estis rapina et incontinentia; sed et omne opus malum idolatria est et fornicatio spiritalis.” (“These two things are the chief things that hypocrites contend should be enjoyed, to eat and 259

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body

161

the knowledge about the mystery of the Son of Man.263 They even call Christ their Lord, but they are unknown to him, because they commit works of iniquity.264 For Tyconius, the hypocrisy basically consists of hidden works of darkness and spiritual wickedness, and it is invented by the devil, whose objective is, with the help of the great signs and wonders performed by his servants, to lead the elect astray (Matt 24:24–25; cf. 2 Thess 2:9).265 The exegete notices that the craftiness of the evil forces is so ingenious that it is hardly perceived by the true brothers.266 The evil bishops, who administer sacraments illegitimately, are

to fornicate, as the Lord says: But inside you are full of rapine and unrestraint [Matt 23:25]; but also every evil work is idolatry and spiritual fornication”). 263 Cf. EA I, 261–5: “Et dabo ei calculum candidum, id est corpus baptismo candidatum, et super calculum nomen novum scriptum, id est mysterium filii hominis, quod nemo scit, nisi qui accipit. Hypocritis enim, licet habere videantur, non est datum intellegere.” (“And I shall give to him a white stone, that is, a body made white through baptism, and upon the stone a new name written, that is, the mystery of the Son of Man, which no one knows except the one who receives it [Rev 2:17]. Indeed to hypocrites, although they seem to have it, it is not given them to understand”). 264 Cf. EA I, 376–10: “Manifestum est quod Christus suis pulsantibus aperiat et hypocritis vitae ianuam claudat pulsantibus.” (“It is shown that Christ opens to his own who are knocking [cf. Matt 7:8] and shuts the door of life to hypocrites who knock”). 265 Cf. EA II, 351.20–25.40–48: “Describit et hypocrisin revelatam … Non ideo hypocrisis pars diaboli non erit, quia ecclesiam non aperte devastat, cum apostolus dicat totam vim diaboli contra sanctos in spiritali nequitia consistere, et dominus de eadem: Exsurgent, inquit, pseudochristi et pseudoprophetae, et dabunt signa magna et prodigia, ita ut errant, si fieri potest, etiam electi; vos autem cavete, ecce praedixi vobis … in nigro, qui libram ostentat et laedit, hypocrisin, quae est opera tenebrarum, in altero revelatam hypocrisin, quae est abominatio vastationis … – etsi in Africa, ubi id fieri ex quarta intellegimus, non eo fit quod hypocritae revelentur; qui iam dudum, cum ecclesia pellerentur, revelati sunt. Sed quod in Africa geritur exemplum est per orbem futurae Revelationis antichristi, qui nunc sub libra manu prolata opera iniquitatis ecercet.” (“He also describes open hypocrisy … But this is not to say that hypocrisy, because it does not openly ravage the church, will not be on the side of the Devil, since the Apostle says that all the power of the devil against the saints consists in spiritual wickedness [Eph 6:12], and the Lord says about the same [power of the Devil]: False christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so that, if it were possible, even the elect would be led astray. But you, beware. Behold, I have told you beforehand [Matt 24:24–25; Mark 13:22–23] … In the black one [horse], which holds a scale and causes harm [cf. Rev 6:5–6], he described hypocrisy, which is the works of darkness [Rom 13:12]. In the other he described open hypocrisy, which is the abomination of desolation [Matt 24:15] … – And yet in Africa, where we understand it is happening from the fourth [part], it may not be that the hypocrites are revealed there. They were revealed already a short time ago when they were expelled from the church. But what is taking place in Africa is a figure of the future Revelation of Antichrist throughout the world, who, now, under the scale in his outstretched hand, performs works of iniquity”). 266 Cf. EA II, 3548–49: “Hypocrisis autem vix a sapientibus deprehenditur.” (“Moreover, hypocrisy is scarcely perceived by the wise”).

162

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

a part of the open hypocrisy.267 Their power over the people is compared to the power which the devil has given to the beast coming up out of the sea. These false leaders, using the church, perform the will of Christ’s enemy.268 The beast, that is, the devil and his body, by fabricating the wound of Christ, masquerades himself (cf. Rev 13:12, John 20:26–27).269 The power of seduction, described in Rev 13:13–14, with which the beast is endowed, works in the church and leads those who are unaware of the power of the devil into falsehood. The power of evil is a mystery which seduces, in contrast to the power of good which is a mystery that fascinates. The earthly minded people become, eventually, like the beast, assuming his spiritual character.270 Tyconius emphasises that the body of sin itself is a false sign and everyone who comprises it is a deceiver271 and hypocrite who receives the beast under the name of Christ.272 Commenting on Rev 15:8, the exegete warns the servants of the devil that, after the final separation of the bipartite church, “none of the hypocrites will be able to enter the church.”273 For Tyconius, the dragon symbolises the devil, the beast – the body of the devil, and the false prophets – the bishops of the body of the devil, who have one and the same unclean spirit, here presented in three spirits, who come from their mouths (cf. Rev 16:13).274 The hypocrites, who have these unclean spirits in themselves, are compared to frogs that pretend to live in the water, but in fact wallow around in the filth and mud (cf. Rev 16:14).275 These false Christians, 267 Cf. EA IV, 371–3: “Descripta generaliter bestia primo in hypocrisi, deinde aperto ore blasphemantem, describit in solis praepositis similiter hypocrisin revelatam.” (“Having first described in a general way the beast in hypocrisy, he then describes in a similar manner the open hypocrisy in the bishops alone, as one blaspheming with an open mouth”). 268 See EA IV, 402–8. 269 See EA IV, 4122–43; LR VII, 14.2. 270 Cf. EA IV, 426–9: “per haec charismata seducit terrenos se ipsos facere simulacrum bestiae, et datum est ei dare spiritum simulacro bestiae, id est ipsi populo qui hanc falsitatem impleuerit bestiae se constituendo simulacrum.” (“through these miraculous signs he deceives those who are earthly minded into making themselves into an image of the beast. And it was granted to him to give life to the image of the beast; that is, to that people, who will have carried out this falsehood, to make themselves into an image of the beast”). 271 See EA IV, 431–14. 272 Cf. EA IV, 445–7: “Sancti enim, qui sunt in ecclesia, Christum accipiunt in manu et in fronte, id est in opere et in professione, hypocritae autem bestiam sub Christi nomine.” (“For the saints who are in the church receive Christ on their hand and on their forehead, that is, in deed and in profession. But hypocrites [receive] the beast under the name of Christ”); V, 116–8: “Non enim fur et periurus gravius omnibus peccant, ut solos damnari diceret, sed fur et periurus hypocritae sunt.” (“For a thief and a perjurer do not sin more seriously than everyone else, as if he said they alone are to be condemned. But the thief and perjurer are hypocrites”). 273 EA V, 284–5: “id est nemo ex hypocritis poterit intrare ecclesiam.” 274 See EA V, 411–6. 275 Cf. EA V, 425–7: “Sic hypocritae non in aqua, ut putantur, degunt, sed in sordibus quas credentes in aqua deponunt delitescunt.” (“So also hypocrites do not live in the water, as they

2. The Opposing Activities in the Lord’s Body

163

though they have been washed in the baptismal water, continue to live in the dirty mire of their sins. This is the “mystery of evil,” whose activity Tyconius understands according to the sixth mystical Rule:276 “For it is a recapitulation of the whole time in which hypocrites perform signs, by doing heavenly things and [acting] as if they are bestowing a blessing.”277 The exegete may be referring to the sacramental activity of the hypocrites whose liturgy does not differ in practice from the liturgy of the true church. Their masquerading and performing of the liturgical signs bring more confusion among the believers. The true church, the Bride of Christ, and the false church, represented in the harlot of Rev 17:4, are both adorned with precious stones. As we have mentioned already, in the Liber Regularum, the exegete regards this woman as the opposing body, who with these ornaments, imitating “the stones of fire” of the body of Christ (cf. Ezek 28:14), attempts to simulate the truth.278 The chalice in her hand, made out of gold but filled with impurities, represents hypocrisy.279 The hypocrites perform the same liturgy as the true church leaders, and they outwardly appear to others as just, but within they are filled with the spirit of the devil. The beast remains who he is, even if hidden beneath the dress of the whore. The fake gorgeousness of the stones that decorate the devil’s body is noticed in its acts of hatred, as the authenticity of the stones that adorn the Lord’s body is recognised in the acts of love.280 The sign on the forehead of the woman, a mystery, discloses hypocrisy as well.281 The opposing body strives to imitate the mystery of God but, in fact, participates in the mystery of the devil.

seem, but they lie concealed in the filth that believers lay aside in the water”). 276 See LR VI, 2. 277 EA V, 434–6: “recapitulatio est enim totius temporis in quo hypocritae faciunt signa, caelestia gerendo et quasi benedictionem ostendendo.” 278 See LR VII, 14.219–20.1–4. Cf. EA VI, 51–3: “Et mulier erat circumdata purpura et cocco et adornata auro et lapide pretioso et margaritis, id est omnibus inlecebris simulatae veritatis.” (“And the woman was clothed in purple and scarlet and was adorned with gold and precious stone and pearls [Rev 17:4], that is, with every allurement of simulation of the truth”). 279 Cf. EA VI, 63–6: “Aurum plenum immunditiarum hypocrisis est, qui a foris quidem parent hominibus quasi iusti, intus autem pleni sunt omni immunditia.” (“The gold [chalice] full of impurities is hypocrisy. They indeed on the outside appear to men as righteous, but inside are full of every impurity” [Matt 23:27–28]). 280 See LR VI, 4.2–4.4. 281 Cf. EA VI, 73–6.8–10: “Nulla est superstitio quae fronti det signum, nisi hypocrisis. Spiritus autem retulit quid sit scriptum in fronte mulieris; nam quis talem titulum aperte imponat? Mysterium enim dixit esse, quod interpretatus est … Unum est enim corpus adversum intus ac foris. Quod licet videatur loco separatum, in commune tamen unitate spiritus operatur.” (“It is not a false belief that the sign on her forehead conveys, but hypocrisy. Moreover, the Spirit related what is written on the forehead of the woman; for who would openly put such an inscription? Indeed, he said that it was a mystery, which has been interpreted … for the adverse body, inside and out, is one. Although it seems separated by place, nevertheless its spirit is working in a common unity”).

164

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

These few examples of the fallacious character of the opposing body and the source of its energy show us how closely the body is united with its head. The hypocrites accomplish the plan of the devil and in this way fight God and refuse to be what they were meant to be. Their apparent participation in the Lord’s body does not allow them to assume Christ’s character, but it pushes them to embrace more and more what they practice, namely the nature of Christ’s enemy. They construct their lives on deceitfulness because in reality they participate in the essence of the devil’s nature. This second section has helped us to establish a clear understanding of the “mystery of evil” which, on the one hand, belongs to the devil and his body and, on the other hand, is controlled by God and the body of the Lord. The bipartite condition of the church and the constant tension and division in the human being are expressions of this mystery. The objective of its inventor is to besmirch the beauty and harmony of God. The evil members of the church are active and spread confusion and suffering among the true brothers because they are energised by the devil in order to become as he is. Evil is able to multiply like a virus if it finds a proper host. Their freedom that they delivered to the devil makes them incapable of knowing the mysteries of God, both in Scripture and in the church. Tyconius’ focus on the “mystery of evil” and its operations in the church and in the life of a believer shows his deep spiritual understanding of this fourth century Northern Africa reality. The historical events lead him to the mystical thinking about the permeation of invisible and visible worlds where good and evil forces fight throughout time. The freedom of the human being becomes a decisive factor that can restrain evil and persevere in the good. The false brothers who abandoned the Spirit of God and followed evil spirits do not recognise the truth but are blinded by falsehood. Their evil actions gradually become their condemnation, a process which suggests that the “mystery of evil” serves God’s purposes, by performing the just judgment at the time of the final separation of good from evil and the true from the false church.

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body In the previous two sections, we have discussed who the members of the Lord’s body are and what opposing activities they undertake in the church. In the third section we shall scrutinise the Lord’s body from the perspective of the ultimate separation that will occur in its midst at the end of time. The Donatists believed that the separation between true and false Christians takes place in the present time and that God has chosen them as an apocalyptic remnant that awaits the return of the Lord. Tyconius, in contrast, speaks about the bipartite condition of the church, where evil and good coexist and interact in the present time, but under God’s control. The complete separation from the “mystery of

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

165

evil,” which the former Donatist advocates, takes place in the future and not only in Northern Africa, but in the whole world. This is not located at the Judgment Day but precedes the Revelation of the “Man of sin” and the advent of the Lord. The Donatist theological vision is cognitive and focuses more on the aspects of truth and falsity, that is, on the ecclesiastical doctrines, whereas Tyconius concentrates on the aspects of good and evil – therefore, on the moral issues of the bipartite condition of the church. For him, being morally good or evil, holy or unholy, is the point of departure for speaking about the true or false church. In Tyconius, we notice not the doctrinal, but existential language that expresses his personal suffering over the situation of the church. The schism in the African church naturally becomes significant for Tyconius’ apocalyptic pattern. The tension and warfare between the Donatists and the Caecilianists are a representation of what will happen throughout the world. This conflict, as the exegete believes, was prophesied in Scripture and is, at the same time, a prefiguration of the final struggle that awaits the church worldwide when the false brothers will be exposed. The exegete proposes a clear pedagogical eschatology, composed of the above-mentioned various stages, which eventually arrives at its final and definitive consummation at the Revelation of the Lord. This process seems to be an indirect reception of the problem mentioned in 2 Thess 2:1–2, where the Thessalonians were confused with regard to the coming of the Lord. Tyconius’ community has found itself in a similar situation of disorientation, and he provides a spiritual clarification about the proper order of past, present and future events. His references to time or space are understood as universal categories, in contrast to the sectarian approach of the Donatists that does not reflect the catholicity of the church. As we have already seen, the body of the Lord, composed of various members that are wounded during the spiritual battle, will be healed at the time of the final separation from the body of the devil. Tyconius develops this important eschatological theme with the help of the motifs that he draws from 2 Thessalonians 2 and which we will now attempt to analyse. The theme of discessio (“departure” / “separation”), inspired by the reception of the term ἀποστασία from 2 Thess 2:3b, becomes the third major world-constructing motif of his theology. It is supported by the minor motifs of in medio (“in the midst”) and de/e medio (“from the midst” [2 Thess 2:7c]), which describe the present and future condition of the Lord’s body. The events after the eschatological separation within the church are further explained by the reference to the adventus Domini (the “Day of the Lord”) mentioned in 2 Thess 2:8bc and echo the theme of 2 Thess 2:11–12.

166

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

3.1 Discessio The author of 2 Thessalonians informs us that the coming of the Lord must be preceded not only by the “Revelation of the Man of sin,” but also by the “apostasy” (2 Thess 2:3b):282 Μή τις ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατήσῃ κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον. ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας. Let no one deceive you in any way; because [that day will not come] unless the apostasy come first and the Man of Lawlessness, the Son of Destruction.

The definite article ἡ before ἀποστασία suggests that the Thessalonians are familiar with this future event (cf. v. 5),283 or at least this concept is known to them.284 The noun occurs nowhere else in Paul’s writings.285 In light of the OT background, where apostasy has a mainly religious character, the meaning here likely refers to a rebellion against God, without excluding a civil or political revolt.286 Some modern scholars consider the Jews, with their future and decisive rejection of the Gospel, as the participants in this apostasy.287 Others think about the apostates from within the Christian community of faith. Still others see this term more generally as “the rebellion of the creature against the Creator.”288 A few exegetes understand ἡ ἀποστασία in 2 Thess 2:3b as a “departure” in reference to the sudden “rapture” of believers immediately prior to the seven-year period of tribulation.289 Nicklas notes that this apostasy does not necessarily have to be understood as a consequence of oppression or persecution of the community, but can also be based on the fascination that emanates from the eschatological adversary, the Antichrist, who seduces the congregation.290 Nicklas is right in pointing out that fascination and seduction characSee also 1 Tim 4:1; 2 P 2:1–2; Jude 1:18. See Bauer, BDAG, 686.2.a. 284 See Ernst von Dobschütz, Die Thessalonicher-Briefe, KEK 10, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1909, 7th ed. reprinted in 1974), 269; Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 281; Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 244. 285 The verbal form ἀφίστημι (to withdraw from one; to fall away) occurs three times in the Pauline corpus: 2 Cor 12:8; 1 Tim 4:1; 2 Tim 2:19; in the rest of the NT only in Acts 21:21. 286 See Weima, 1–2 Thessalonians, 511–12. 287 See Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 282– 84; William D. Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel,” NTS 24 (1977–78): 8. 288 Morris, First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 219, n. 18. 289 See English E. Schuyler, Re-thinking the Rapture, Travelers Rest (South Carolina: Southern Bible Book House, 1954), 67–71; Kenneth S. Wuest, “The Rapture – Precisely When?” BSac 114 (1957): 63–67; H. Wayne House, “Apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3: Apostasy or Rapture?” in When the Trumpet Sounds, eds. Thomas Ice and Timothy J. Demy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1995), 261–95. For the opposite view, see Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 113–18; Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, 304–5. 290 “Dieser Abfall muss nicht unbedingt als Folge von Unterdrückung und Verfolgung der Gemeinde zu verstehen sein; er kann sich auch mit der Faszination, die vom eschatol282 283

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

167

terise the “mystery of evil,” but analogically we can think about the mystery of God, which also fascinates, but which, instead of seducing, illuminates. In the ancient Latin versions, we find various translations of the word ἀποστασία, which would suggest a different understanding of this term. Text type X has abscessio (going away, separating), type D refuga (fleeing away), types J and V discessio (withdrawal, departure) and type I defectio (rebellion).291 Therefore, the meaning given to the word ἀποστασία in v. 3b conditions the interpretation of v. 7c (ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται [donec de medio fiat]). In Tertullian’s and Irenaeus’ versions, we find abscessio, but in Tyconius’ writings, we find a constant use of the word discessio. Both these variants lead to ambiguity that makes the understanding more complicated. Types I and D clearly suggest that the separation is the act of the “Man of sin.”292 The following analysis of Tyconius’ use of this motif should help us to solve this ambiguity. The question that we will attempt to answer is whether he who separates is the one who restrains, or the one who is restrained. In other words, is it the good part of the church that breaks the relation with the evil part (a positive and deliberate ἀποστασία), or the evil part that deserts the trial that awaits the faithful brothers (a negative and also deliberate but irrational ἀποστασία)?293 Deliberation is cognitive and requires human reflection. For Tyconius, the believer is a good person who uses his or her faith and reason to make a proper discernment and a deliberate decision. Non-believers lack this capacity of self-questioning and introspection. The evil part of the Lord’s body does not cease to renew itself. Its members are like parasites who attempt to possess the body of the host and spread their dangerous venom throughout. At first glance, it seems to be unfavourable for the good brothers, but, in fact, this relationship could be called symbiotic, because of the mutual benefits. In this case, we can also notice another aspect of the eschatological pedagogy in which the evil members of the church, though they abuse the purity of the Lord’s body, help the faithful members to practise the authenticity of their perseverance: Templum enim bipertitum est, cuius pars altera, quamuis lapidibus magnis extruatur destruitur, neque in eo lapis super lapidem relinquetur. Istius nobis iugis adventus est, donec de medio eius discedat ecclesia.294

ogischen Gegenspieler ausgeht, dem Antichristen, der die Gemeinde verführt, begründen,” Nicklas, Der zweite Thessalonicherbrief, 128. 291 See VL, vol. 25.1, 323. 292 See Tyconius, Commentaire de l’Apocalypse (CCT 10), 55. 293 Cf. EA II, 381–4: “Sicut ficus magno vento agitata amittit grossos suos. Arborem fici ecclesiae comparavit, ventum magnum persecutioni, grossos hominibus malis, qui excutiuntur ab ecclesia.” (“As a fig tree, shaken by a great wind, loses its figs [Rev 6:13]. He compared a fig tree to the church, a great wind to persecution, and figs to evil people, who are cut off from the church”). 294 LR I, 135–9.

168

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

For the temple is bipartite; and its other part is being destroyed, although it is built out of great stones, and in it a stone will not be left upon a stone (cf. Matt 24:2). The immediate advent of this to us must be watched out for until from its midst (2 Thess 2:7c) the church departs (2 Thess 2:3b).

As we have mentioned above, Tyconius, unlike his fellow Donatists, understands the separation as a future and universal reality.295 According to him, at present, it is impossible to separate the true church from the false one. He agrees, however, with the Donatist concept of the true church as an apocalyptic remnant that awaits liberation from the oppression of its persecutors. The church’s liberation is presented as the departure from her bipartite condition. An image which constantly helps Tyconius to clarify his eschatological pedagogy is the departure of Lot from the doomed city of Sodom (Gen 19). This is a proclamation of the absolute separation of the true church from the “Man of sin”: Tempus est enim quo haec non in mysteriis sed aperte dicantur, inminente discessione quod est revelatio hominis peccati, discedente Loth a Sodomis.296 For there is a time when these things may be said not in mystery but openly, as that separation (2 Thess 2:3b) approaches which is the Revelation of the Man of sin (2 Thess 2:3c) when Lot departs from Sodom (Gen 19:15–17; cf. Luke 17:28–30).

Tyconius’ rhetorical play on the terms inminente and discedente seems to suggest the double meaning of discessio here. On the one hand, the rebellion of the body of the “Man of sin” is getting closer and, on the other hand, the departure of the body of the Lord from the “mystery of evil” is at hand.297 Sodom, in Tyconius’ exegesis, is not considered to be bipartite, and therefore it always has a negative connotation and refers only to the left-side of the church. Lot, in contrast, represents for all time the right-side of the Lord’s body: Aliquae vero species sinistrae tantum sunt, ut Sodoma, sicut scriptum est: Audite verbum Domini principes Sodomorum, et: Quae vocatur spiritaliter Sodoma et Aegyptus, ubi et Dominus eorum crucifixus est. Ex his Sodomis exiet Loth, quod est, discessio, ut reveletur homo peccati.298 Some particulars represent only the left-hand part; for instance, Sodom, as it is written, hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom (Isa 1:10), and which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified (Rev 11:8). From those of Sodom will depart See, for example, LR, III, 29; IV, 17, 19.1; VI, 3.1; VII, 4.3, 18.2. LR III, 2910–12. 297 Paula Fredriksen Landes, referring to the definition of discessio, given by A. Blaise in the Dictionnaire Latin-Français des Auteurs Chrétiens, proposes to translate the inminente discessione as “the coming threatened apostasy”: “Inminente here means ‘threatened’ or ‘threatening’, but because of the play with discedente I have had to use two English words for the one Latin participle.” In her translation she adds “like” (“which is the Revelation of the man of sin, is [like] Lots’ leaving Sodom”), because “discedente Loth a Sodomis is in apposition to inminente discessione, as a sort of simile.” See Fredriksen Landes, “Tyconius and the End of the World,” 64 and n. 24). 298 LR IV, 1714–18. 295 296

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

169

Lot (cf. Gen 19:16); and that is the departure (2 Thess 2:3b) so that the Man of sin may be revealed (2 Thess 2:3c).

In Tyconius’ hermeneutical system, past historical events such as those recorded in Scripture, as well as future prophecies both elucidate the present situation of the church. As we have already seen, he calls this exegetical operation recapitulation. The prophecy of the past, which is fulfilled in the present time of the church, at the same time points to the future reality. At the beginning of the sixth Rule, Tyconius presents two examples from the Gospels that help us to better grasp the meaning of the motif of discessio. Through the passage from Luke 17:29–32, the exegete, on the one hand, explains that the separation is the future reality, but, on the other hand, reminds his readers that the future is determined by present choices and decisions: Aliquotiens enim sic recapitulat: Tunc, Illa hora, Illo die, Eo tempore, sicuti Dominus loquitur in Evangelio dicens: Die quo exiit Loth a Sodomis pluit ignem de caelo et perdidit omnes, secundum haec erit dies filii hominis, quo revelabitur. Illa hora qui erit in tecto et vasa eius in domo non descendat tollere illa, et qui in agro similiter non revertatur retro; meminerit uxoris Loth.299 For example, sometimes it recapitulates thus: Then, At that hour, On that day, At this time, just as the Lord speaks in the Gospel, saying: On the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire from heaven and it destroyed all the people: it will be just like this on the day of the Son of Man, when he will be revealed. At that hour, let him who is on the roof, and his vessels in the house, not descend to take them away; and let him who is in the field, likewise, not turn back: remember Lot’s wife (Luke 17:29–32; cf. Gen 19:26).

If this text is not read through the lens of recapitulation, one might think that the markers – “then,” “at that hour,” “on that day,” “at this time” – refer to the future when the Lord is revealed, and only at that moment, one would have to follow the advice for watchfulness. The past event (Lot’s going out from Sodom) that highlights the future event (the coming of the Son of Man) actually speaks about the present events of the church. Though the separation between good and evil is impossible now, Tyconius seems to suggest that this process begins spiritually in the present life of the church.300 The image of the man fleeing and leaving behind all of his possessions encourages the good members of the Lord’s body to flee from the things of this world that will be destroyed at the eschaton. The motif of fleeing is also applied by Tyconius in another example of recapitulation, called future similitudines (future likenesses). Through the reference to the prophecy of Daniel at the end of time, mentioned in Matt LR VI, 26–12. Cf. LR VI, 215–17.1: “Dominus autem illa hora qua revelatus fuerit iussit ista observari, non solum ut abscondendo quaerentibus gratiorem faceret veritatem, sed etiam ut totum illud tempus diem vel horam esse monstraret.” (“The Lord commanded that these things be observed at the hour of his Revelation not only to enhance the value of the truth, for those who seek it, by making it hard to find, but also to show that that whole time is the ‘day’ or the ‘hour’”). 299 300

170

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

24:15–16, he explains that this recapitulation occurs when the present situation mirrors a future event. Tyconius incorporates the events of his time into his apocalyptic model. And so, the persecutions suffered by the Donatists under Christian emperors reflect the end time events that will take place in the whole world. This aggressiveness of the evil forces, now limited in space and time, gives the church a glimpse of the final persecution: Quod autem Danihel dixit in Africa geritur, neque in eodem tempore finis. Sed quoniam, licet non in eo tempore finis, in eo tamen titulo futurum est, propterea Tunc dixit, id est cum similiter factum fuerit per orbem, quod est discessio et revelatio hominis peccati.301 But what Daniel said (cf. Matt 24:15) is going on now in Africa, and the end is not at this time. But since, even if the end is not at this time, by this same reason it is about to be, nevertheless: therefore, he said, Then, that is, when it will have occurred similarly throughout the world, which is the schism (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) and the Revelation of the Man of sin (2 Thess 2:3c).

The Donatist-Caecilianist controversy becomes, for Tyconius, a paradigm of the worldwide eschatological events. It seems that particularly in this context the word discessio could be translated as “schism,” and the Revelation of the “Man of sin” could be understood as the exposure of evil in the church. Tyconius does not agree either with the Donatists’ claim that their separated church is pure or with the Caecilianist position which postpones the answer to the question of evil to the end of time. He maintains that evil can be identified both in the world and in the church, but in the form of the mystery which will be surely unveiled. Tyconius exhorts the members of Christ’s body to be open to the illumination that springs from the prophetic texts and to understand the signs of the times. For this reason, we can say that the fascinating mystery of God enclosed in the prophecies enlightens the present circumstances of the church. Through the spiritual wisdom of Scripture, one can learn to detect those who are on the way to separation from Christ. In Tyconius’ logic, the discessio is like a spark that kindles the final persecution, which decisively reveals the identity of the false brothers. Only then will the time of the church give space to eternity: Hoc autem geritur a passione Domini, quoadusque de medio eiusdem mysterii facinoris discedat Ecclesia quae detinet, ut in tempore suo detegatur impietas…302 However, this is produced by [from the time of] the passion of the Lord, until from the midst of this same mystery of evil (cf. 2 Thess 2:7ca) the church which detains departs (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b), in order that in his time impiety may be exposed (cf. 2 Thess 2:3c) …

Tyconius returns to the motif of discessio at the end of the Liber Regularum, once again, in the context of the destruction of Sodom. He underlines two aspects: God’s intervention and the church’s function at that moment, which

301 302

LR VI, 3.18–13. LR VII, 4.35–8.

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

171

is a type of relationship that we can classify as collaboration between the operative grace of God and the cooperative grace of man: Sed prophetia est futurae discessionis. Memor enim Deus promissionis ad Abraham eiecit Loth de omnibus civitatibus Sodomorum, quibus veniet ignis ex igni Ecclesiae, quae de medio eorum educetur.303 But the prophecy is of a future departure (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b); for God, mindful of the promise to Abraham, cast Lot out from all the cities of Sodom (cf. Gen 19:29) to which will come the fire out of the fire of the church, which will be brought from their midst (cf. 2 Thess 2:7c).

The exegete points out that Lot, who, as we have said, represents the church, is removed by God from the cities of Sodom that symbolise the “mystery of evil.” God intervenes because ultimately, he decides when the time is fulfilled and eternity begins. Being inside the church, at that final moment, will lead to the damnation of the false brothers. The lives of hypocrites will be burned at the revealed presence of God in the church. The hidden sanctity of the church will consume the depravity of the “mystery of evil,” and the saints who endure the trials of the time will celebrate their victory. The motif of discessio crops up frequently in Tyconius’ interpretation of Revelation. He further explains the depth of his eschatology in the light of various images from the last book of the NT. In the already mentioned prologue to his Expositio Apocalypseos, when interpreting Rev 1:15, the exegete suggests that the content of the book of Revelation prepares the church to embrace her trials, but always in view of the approaching liberation. Meantime, however, the believers must prove their authentic love and their disregard for hatred: In hoc libro nihil aliud invenies nisi bella et incendia intestina, quae deus per Christum suum revelare ecclesiae suae dignatus est, ut imminente discessione sciret populus dei quanta et qualia per tot annos sustineat. Si minus intellexerit, spiritu tamen dei gubernante cauendo fugiendoque facinoris mysterium, id est spiritalia nequitiae in caelestibus, per singulos dies mala vitaverit et aequanimiter et patienter pressuras supportaverit, tamquam aurum in fornace probatus erit.304 In this book you will find nothing else but internal wars and fires, which God deigned through his Christ to reveal to his church, so that in the imminent departure (2 Thess 2:3b) the people of God might know the quantity and quality [of the tribulations] they must endure throughout so many years. If one does not understand, nevertheless with the Spirit of God directing, by being aware of and by fleeing the mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7a), that is, the spirits of wickedness in high places (Eph 6:12), throughout each of those days he will avoid the evils and will bear the tribulations both calmly and patiently, and will be tried as gold in a furnace (Eccl 3:6).

In the above passage, Tyconius explains that bearing the tribulations of the present time means fleeing (cf. Matt 24:16) from the “mystery of evil,” that is, from being involved in the impure world of evil spirits. The church is able to recognise the object from which she should stay away, and she has the capacity 303 304

LR VII, 18.216–20. EA I, 528–36.

172

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

to actively practice it during her earthly time. The victory of the church over the Antichrist is assured by the hidden presence of Christ in his church: Non enim, ut aliqui putant, antichristus uno in loco erit ecclesiam persecuturus, cum rex sit novissimus in toto mundo regnaturus, qui se dicat deum. Nunc vero occultus est in ecclesia, sed verus Christus deus occultus numquam de medio ecclesiae discessit.305 For Antichrist, as some think, will not persecute the church in [only] one place, since he will rule as the last king over the whole earth, he who calls himself God (2 Thess 2:4). But now he is hidden in the church, but the true Christ, the hidden God (cf. Isa 45:15), has never departed (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) from the midst of (2 Thess 2:7c) the church.

The last sentence of Tyconius’ comment illustrates the proper hierarchy of creation and divine order. God, in his absolute freedom, respecting the free will of both humans and evil angels, allows them to act under the illusion that they are able to usurp his divine place. Even if the Antichrist is convinced that Christ departed from his church, because evil seems to rule among and in the hearts of Christians, the Lord remains united with his body. In truth, it is the Antichrist who is now hiding in the church who will have to depart from that which does not belong to him. Christ as God does not have any need to respond to the Antichrist’s provocation, because he acts according to his divine wisdom and will. The church, however, by hiding herself in Christ, seeks to align her will with the wisdom of her Head. She has to depart from whatever opposes God’s holiness. In this conformation or adequatio between the church and Christ, the Holy Scripture serves as mediator, which inspires the body of the Lord and transmits to it the wisdom and holiness of Christ the Head. Tyconius, in his comments on Rev 6:13–14, suggests that the separation is two-dimensional: the true church, formed by the good believers in Christ, will voluntarily separate from the false church, and the evil brothers will be pushed away from the good ones. He recalls a number of images which illustrate this reality. For example, from a fig tree – understood as the church, the fruits – the evil people – are cut off (excutiuntur) (v. 13);306 or heaven, every mountain, island (v. 14) – which also represent the church, “recedes (recedit) from evil people.”307 Tyconius observes that during the last persecution “the whole church receded (recessisse) from its place,” “since the good part, fleeing (fugiens), will be moved from its place; and the bad part, leaving (cedens), will be moved from its place.”308 We have to remember that Tyconius’ goal is EA I, 4113–18. Cf. EA II, 382–4: “Arborem fici ecclesiae comparavit, ventum magnum persecutioni, grossos hominibus malis, qui excutiuntur ab ecclesia.” (“He [John] compared a fig tree to the church, a great wind to persecution, and figs to evil people, who are cut off from the church”). 307 EA II, 391–3: “Caelum ecclesiam dicit, quae a malis recedit et intra se sibi soli nota continent.” (“He [John] calls the church heaven, which recedes from evil people and contains within it things that are known to itself alone”). 308 EA II, 402–6: “Quod caelum, hoc montes, hoc insulae significant, id est ecclesiam facta novissima persecutione omnem de loco suo recessisse. Sed potest in utramque partem con305 306

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

173

not to describe the persecuted church in Africa in his time, but the situation of the whole time of the church and her final eschatological separation from the “mystery of evil.” He is just inspired by the Donatist-Caecilianist schism, but he speaks about the true and definite separation within the church: Non enim in novissimo tantum terrae motu multis de caelo labentibus confugient alii ad montes, domini misericordiam implorantes, – hoc semper factum est a passione domini usque nunc, – sed tunc magis fiet, cum instare diem domini signum discessionis ostenderit. Sic enim habet consuetudinem prophetia narrare futura quasi iam facta, sic praeterita quasi adhuc facienda.309 For it is not only in the last earthquake, when many fall from heaven, that some will flee to the mountains (cf. Matt 24:16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:21), imploring the mercy of the Lord. This has always happened from the passion of the Lord up until now. But at that time, it will be greater, when the sign of the departure (2 Thess 2:3b) will show that the day of the Lord is beginning. For it is the custom of prophecy to tell of future things as if they have already happened, and in the same way past things as if they are still going to happen.

The above comment on Rev 6:16–17 is another form of Tyconius’ play on the issue of the church’s time. Some Christians continually separate from Christ, becoming members of the devil’s body, but they also come back to the Lord by repenting of their sins. We can, therefore, understand the present time of the church as the time of conversion and purification for the majority of Christians. In this sense, however, metanoia and repentance are the expression of the deliberate and personal decision to come back to Christ. The final separation will become destructive for those who are not hidden in Christ. The reader of prophecies in Scripture must pay attention to different kinds of recapitulations which have to be understood according to the context. This is the specific language of the Holy Spirit who, through different types of narratives, communicates to the church the same divine truth.310 It is the message of warning and consolation which, on the one hand, demonstrates God immeasurable patience towards the evil brothers hiding in the church and, on the other hand, ensures the believers of their final victory at the eschaton. The beginning of God’s just wrath is described in Rev 8:7 when the first angel sounded a trumpet. The twofold evil, that is, the heathen and the evil brothers who make up the devil’s body and fight against the true church, are symbolised in the burning of a third part of the earth and a third part of the trees. They will be destroyed, but in the meantime, they expose the faithfulness of a third part that will be left.311 Tyconius absolutely rejects the Donatist idea of the pure church, composed excluvenire, quia bona pars movebitur de loco suo fugiens, et mala pars movebitur de loco suo cedens.” (“What heaven signifies, what the mountains signify, and what the islands signify, that is, that when the last persecution has occurred, the whole church receded from its place. But one is able to apply this to each part, since the good part, fleeing, will be moved from its place; and the bad part, leaving, will be moved from its place”). 309 EA II, 4352–58. 310 See EA II, 4379–88. 311 See EA III, 1014–17.

174

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

sively of the elite, and advances the coexistence of holiness and sinfulness in the body of the Lord. God allows the evil and good brothers to grow together, and only at the divine harvest will the counterfeit people of God be unmasked: Antequam discessio fiat, omnes dei populus reputantur; cum discessio facta fuerit, tunc apparebit tertia dei.312 Before the departure (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) happens, everyone is considered the people of God. When the departure (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) has happened, then the third part of the people of God will appear.

There is a clear temporal distinction in the above statement: before and after the departure, that is, the present and the future time of the church. The chances given to good and evil brothers are equal, but their present decision determines their future status in the church. The hypocrites, who at present fight against the holy ones, also kill each other spiritually.313 Tyconius emphasises that entering into the circle of evil is morally destructive and makes those brothers insensitive to the truth. God’s permission for such a state of affairs seems already to be the beginning of their punishment. The enemy body of the devil, illustrated in the part of the four angels of Rev 9:15, is prepared at any time to kill a third part of the church, that is, the evil brothers. Evil is divided within itself, and therefore the church must separate from the devil’s reality, which is incompatible with the integrity of Christ’s body: Parati autem dixit, quia ex quo percussa est tertia pars soli et lunae et stellarum ad manifestandum quae esset tertia diei et tertia noctis, parati sunt ut occiderent tertiam partem de qua discedit ecclesia, id est eos qui illis consentiunt.314 Moreover, he said prepared (cf. Rev 9:15) because from the [time] in which the third part of the sun and moon and stars was stricken (cf. Rev 8:7) for the purpose of showing what the third of the day and the third of the night were, they were prepared that they might kill a third part (cf. Rev 9:15) from which the church departs (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b), that is, those who consent to these [false brothers].

The whole body of the devil, which is also symbolised in the beast of the sea,315 works in the time of the church through the “mystery of evil.” This false body is nourished by a diabolic deceitfulness that cunningly attempts to delude the right part of the church and, in this way, provoke an inner conflict in the body of the Lord. Tyconius continually plays on the concept of time, mixing the past and present with the future, and pointing to two temporal stages of the church: before and after discessio. This is the crucial event that exposes the secret plots of the beast – the “Man of sin”:

EA III, 1019–21. Cf. EA II, 3311–13. 314 EA III, 394–8. 315 See EA IV, 301–2. 312 313

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

175

Deinde apervit os suum in blasphemiam ad Deum. Ante enim per tres annos et dimidium non aperto ore blasphemant, sed in mysterio facinoris, quod facta discessione et revelato homine peccati nudabitur.316 Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God (Rev 13:6). For previously they blaspheme throughout the three and a half years not with an open mouth but in the mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7a), which is exposed when the departure happens and the Man of sin is revealed (2 Thess 2:3c).

Rev 14:81 speaks about the fall of the city of Babylon, which Tyconius always defines negatively. It is the “city of the devil,” “the people consenting to him and every corruption,”317 “this world,”318 that stands in opposition to “the city of God” which is the true church.319 The church begins to rejoice, seeing that this immoral city has already fallen.320 The past tense should be understood according to Tyconius’ logic of recapitulation in which the past and future are often recapitulated in the present time.321 Therefore, the events he refers to recount the experience of the African church: Et angelus secundus secutus est, id est pacis futurae praedicatio, dicens: cecidit cecidit Babylon illa magna … Ita intellegendum est de Babylonia, quod est mundus iste: iam in conspectu dei damnata est, quae perspicue in futuro damnata erit; sed in initio ruinae Babylonis iam videmus pacem futuram, deiecto schismate, et discessionem per orbem celebratam.322 And a second angel followed, that is, the preaching of future peace, saying: That great Babylon has fallen, has fallen (Rev 14:8) … But in the beginning of the ruin of Babylon we already see the future peace after the schism has been removed and the departure (2 Thess 2:3b) has been celebrated throughout the world.

What has happened to the historical city of Babylon will happen to the city of the devil within the church. During the moment of the departure, division will be removed, and peace will reign over the city of God. The catholicity of Tyconius is seen in the fact that this new reality will take place not only in North Africa, but also in the whole world, which will celebrate the separation from the presence of evil. The time of this event is established by God. In the first place, it is a future reality, but, at the same time, as Tyconius’ logic suggests, it is already happening in the church. The angel in Rev 14:15 symbolises the preaching of the church that constantly warns the evil brothers and reminds them of God’s justice, but at the same time encourages believers to be patient: Angelus de templo clamans est in ecclesia imperium domini non perspicua voce, sed suggestione spiritus sancti, qui operatur in suo corpore, docens iam tempus esse malorum ana-

EA IV, 304–8. EA V, 33–4: “Babylonem civitatem diaboli;” “populum ipsi consentientem et omnem corruptelam.” 318 EA V, 318–19: “Ita intellegendum est de Babylonia, quod est mundus iste.” 319 EA V, 35–6: “Nam sicut civitas dei ecclesia est, ita e contrario civitas diaboli.” 320 See EA V, 314–15. 321 See LR VI, 3.15–13. 322 EA V, 31–3.18–22. 316 317

176

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

themandorum, id est discessionis faciendae et inimicorum persecutionem tolerando penitus auferendorum.323 The angel shouting from the temple is the command of the Lord in the church, not in an audible voice but by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, who works in his body, teaching that now is the time of the condemnation of evildoers, that is, for making a separation (2 Thess 2:3b) and for enduring the persecution of enemies and of those entirely worthy of destruction.

In this context, the best translation of the expression discessionis faciendae would be making a separation. The text speaks not so much about the event itself, but about the ‘divine time.’ Tyconius points out that it is not only the “mystery of evil” that “is at work” (cf. 2 Thess 2:7a) within the church, but above all, the Holy Spirit works in the Lord’s body in a mysterious way. The church, however, must be prepared for the devil’s fury when the separation occurs and when truth and falsehood must battle for the last time. It is already assured that the persecuted true church will prevail over her persecutor and will reign with Christ. In the following comments on Rev 14:17 and Rev 14:20, Tyconius again seems to suggest that discessio is two-dimensional: the left side “falls away” from the bipartite body, because of its rebellious abuse of free will, but also the right side voluntarily “departs” from the evil in the church because it participates in the divine authority and power.324 The angel from Rev 14:17 foretells the punishment of the evil brothers after the separation: Et alius angelus exivit de templo quod est in caelo. Alia est praedicatio de ecclesia; prima enim discessionis est et inchoatae persecutionis, alia vero aperte sequentis.325 And another angel went out of the temple which is in heaven (Rev 14:17). This is another preaching of the church. For the first [preaching] is of the separation (2 Thess 2:3b) and of the beginning of the persecution, but the other is clearly of what follows.

For Tyconius, both angels from Rev 14:15 and 14:17 are one and the same and have the same power.326 The angel of v. 17 is commanded by another angel that comes from the altar (v. 18) to begin the harvest. This is the separation marked by Christ’s judgment which takes place within the church. The exegete explains: “And the one who said to the harvester: ‘Reap!’ also said: ‘Gather!’ to the gatherer. For it is one [and the same thing] and will be done at one [and the same] time. In the reaping and gathering, he shows the beginning and the end of one tribulation.”327 Tyconius, therefore, points out that discessio, on the one hand refers to judgment and “falling away,” and on the other hand, to liberation and “departure.” Both, the reaper and the gatherer represent Christ EA V, 124–9. See also LR VI. 325 EA V, 141–3. 326 Cf. EA V, 151–2. 327 EA V, 175–8: “Qui habet falcem messoriam, ipse habet et vindemiatoriam, et qui dixit messori mete, ipse et vindemiatori vindemia; unum est enim et uno tempore fiet; in messe et vindemia intium et finem ostendit unius pressurae.” 323 324

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

177

who works in and through his church, which he empowered to bind and to loose.328 Tyconius, commenting on the image of the winepress from Rev 14:20, continues to explain what happens after the separation: Et calcatum est torcular extra civitatem, id est extra ecclesiam; facta enim discessione foris erit omnis homo peccati.329 And the winepress was trodden outside the city (Rev 14:20), that is, outside the church. For after the separation (2 Thess 2:3b) happens, everyone outside [the church] will be a Man of sin (2 Thess 2:3c).

The final separation is followed by the Revelation of the body of the devil. After that, there will be only two detached realities: the church and the “Man of sin.” The evil brothers will be revealed, and their false pretence will end. This is the sign of the imminence of eschatological persecution, the beginning of the day of the Lord and the church’s absolute victory over her enemies.330 The punishment of the hypocrites is further described in the actions of the seven angels in Rev 15:1: Et vidi aliud signum in caelo magnum et mirabile, angelos septem, id est ecclesiam, habentes plagas septem novissimas, quoniam in ipsis finita est ira dei. Novissimas dixit, quia semper ira dei percutit populum contumacem septem plagis, id est perfecte, sicut ipse deus in Levitico frequenter repetit: Percutiam vos septem plagis, quae novissimae futurae sunt, cum ecclesia de medio eius exierit.331 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and terrible, seven angels, that is, the church, having the seven last plagues. For in them the wrath of God is completed (Rev 15:1). He said last because the wrath of God always strikes stubborn people with seven plagues, that is, completely, as God himself repeats frequently in Leviticus: I shall strike you with seven plagues (Lev 26:18.21.24.28), these last plagues are going to happen when the church goes out (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) from their midst (cf. 2 Thess 2:7c).

Tyconius does not use the verb discedere (to depart) here, but exire (to go out).332 He makes a thematic connection with the angels “going out” of the temple in Rev 14:15.17, who, like the seven angels in Rev 15:1, represent the Cf. EA V, 178–12: “Si autem putandum est quod specialiter Christus visus est in nube alba messor, quis est post eum vindemiator, nisi ipse, sed in suo corpore, quod est ecclesia? Cui dedit hanc potestatem ligandi et soluendi, ut faciat per Christum quod voluerit.” (“Moreover, if it should be thought that Christ particularly was seen in the white cloud as the reaper, who is the gatherer after him but he himself, but in his body, which is the church? To her he gave the power of binding and loosing so that she may do through Christ what she wants” [cf. Matt 18:18]). 329 EA V, 191–3. 330 See EA I, 530–31; II, 4355–56; V, 127–9, 142–3; VI, 407. 331 EA V, 221–8. 332 From Steinhauser’s study on the reception and history of the Apocalypse Commentary of Tyconius we learn that in Victorinus of Pettau’s commentary, revised by Jerome at the request of a certain Anatolius, there is a reference to the departure of the church “from the midst” of the destruction (cum ecclesia de medio exierit) provoked by the last seven plagues described in Rev 15:1. See Steinhauser, The Apocalypse Commentary of Tyconius, 39. 328

178

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

church.333 These seven angels also “went out” (exierunt) of the temple (Rev 15:6), and they are “what the temple itself is.”334 This logic leads Tyconius to the conclusion that “the temple went out of the temple (templum exiit de templo) since it was shown who are the true temple.”335 In other words, the true church “went out” from the false church. He explains his reasoning by adding: Exitum autem pro locis intellegimus. Aliquando enim exitus nativitatis est, sicut scriptum est: Exiet virga de radice Iesse, et iterum: Ex te exiet dux qui regat populum meum Israel, et aliquando exitus perspicuus est, ut illud: Exiit Loth a Sodomis. Exitus iste iussio est, sicut evangelista dicit: Exiit edictum a Caesare Augusto censeri omnem Iudaeam.336 Moreover, we understand the ‘going out’ from the passages. For sometimes the ‘going out’ refers to the nativity, as it is written: A rod will go out from the root of Jesse (Isa 11:1); and again: From you will go out a leader who will rule my people Israel (Matt 2:6; Mic 5:2). And sometimes [the meaning] of ‘going out’ is obvious, as in the passage: Lot went out from Sodom (Luke 17:29; cf. Gen 19:15–17). The ‘going out’ in this passage is an order, as the evangelist says: An edict went out from Augustus Caesar that a census was to be taken in all Judea (Luke 2:1).

The above statement refers to Tyconius’ exegetical hermeneutics, explained in the Liber Regularum, in which he very much underlines the role of the Spirit in relation to the reader. Faith and reason, illumined by the Spirit of God, allow an interpreter of the text to understand its meaning in the biblical context, and then to apply it to the ecclesiastical context. This is precisely what Tyconius does in his exegesis. The seven angels are commanded to pour out the seven bowls of the wrath of God upon the earth (cf. Rev 16:1), which he interprets as: “Authority was given to the church, that wrath may pour forth upon the earth, from which she left (de qua exiit).”337 The earth represents the false church from which the true church, symbolised in the angels, not only separates, but as in the Liber Regularum, also performs her punitive action, exposing the hidden division within humanity and the bipartite church: Et facta est civitas illa magna in tres partes. Haec civitas magna omnis omnino populus est, quisquis est sub caelo, qui fiet in tres partes, cum ecclesia divisa fuerit, ut sit gentilitas una pars, et abominatio vastationis altera, et ecclesia, quae exierit de medio ipsius, tertia.338 And that great city was divided into three parts (Rev 16:19). This great city is all people entirely, everyone who is under heaven (cf. Col 1:23), who will be divided into three parts when the church is divided, resulting in the heathen being one part; and the abomination of desolation (Matt 24:15), another; and the church, which will have gone out (2 Thess 2:3b) from the midst of (2 Thess 2:7c) her, a third. See EA V, 256–10. EA V, 254–5: “et septem angeli ipsum est quod templum.” (“And the seven angels are what the temple itself is”). 335 EA V, 255–6: “Templum exiit de templo, quoniam manifestatum est qui sint verum templum.” 336 EA V, 2510–16. 337 EA V, 293–4: “Data potestas est ecclesiae, ut ira perfundat terram de qua exiit.” 338 EA V, 465–9. 333 334

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

179

In this three-fold anthropological schema, “‘the cities of the nations’ (Rev 16:20b) are the heathen; Babylon is the ‘abomination of desolation’ (cf. Matt 24:15); and the mountains and islands are the church.”339 As we have said earlier, in Tyconius’ hermeneutics, Babylon always represents universal evil, present either in the heathen or in the evil brothers.340 Commenting on the command in Rev 18:4 to go out from the city of Babylon, the exegete says that the holy people, having been clearly warned by God, will depart (discedet), who always depart spiritually (spiritaliter discedit) and go out (exiit) from her, as was spoken through Isaiah: ‘Go out from her midst (exite de medio) and be separate’ (separamini), you who bear the vessels of the Lord; and touch not the unclean thing (Isa 52:11).341

This passage was used by the Donatists to justify their physical separation from Caecilianists, since they considered themselves to be the pure church.342 Tyconius clearly promotes a teaching on the spiritual separation of the believers from the hypocrites, which first has to occur in the human heart in the time of the church, before its physical realisation at the end of times. Referring to 2 Tim 2:19, the exegete says: “The Apostle makes mention of this separation, saying: ‘The Lord knows who are his, and let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity’ (discedat ab iniquitate).”343 Though the members of the bipartite church are not easily able to distinguish the true and false brothers, they are, however, known to God who recognises the condition of hearts and sees the human deeds: Ne communicetis inquit peccatis eius, et plagis eius ne laedamini. Cum scriptum sit: Iustus quacumque morte praeoccupatus fuerit, in refrigerio erit, quomodo particeps peccati esse potest iustus quem cum impiis civitatis casus abstulerit, nisi civitati diaboli aperta discessione celebrata notam bestiae portaturus insidat?344 He said: So that you do not share in her sins, and so that you are not stricken by her plagues (Rev 18:4). Although it is written: Whenever a righteous person dies before his time, he will be at rest (Eccl 4:7), how can a righteous person, whom the fall of the city would kill together with the impious, be a sharer in her sin unless, about to receive the mark of the beast (cf. Rev 13:16), he is inhabiting the city of the Devil when the open and celebrated departure (2 Thess 2:3b) [takes place]?

The mark of the beast, commented upon earlier by Tyconius, applies to the “mystery of evil,” where the profession of Christ and the deeds of hatred oppose each other. For Tyconius, brothers who hate the one, though, bipartite body, EA V, 474–6: “Civitates gentium gentes sunt, Babylon abominatio vastationis, montes et insulae ecclesia est.” 340 See EA V, 4713–15; VI, 253–4. 341 EA VI, 254–8: “ex qua monitis dei etiam perspicue discedet populus sanctus, qui semper ex ea spiritaliter discedit et exiit, sicur per Esaiam dictum est: Exite de medio eius et separamini, qui fertis vasa domini, et immundum nolite tangere.” 342 See Tyconius, Commentaire de l’Apocalypse (CCT 10), 193, n. 10. 343 EA VI, 258–10: “Huius separationis apostolus meminit dicens: Cognovit dominus qui sunt eius, et discedat ab iniquitate.” 344 EA VI, 2511–16. 339

180

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

is the sign of the spirit of the Antichrist.345 This criterion allows God to make a final separation between righteous and impious persons. At present, the church is comforted and assured of the upcoming victory over Babylon, the city of the devil. The “departure” will be a joyful moment for the true members of the Lord’s body and a dramatic and final stage for the hypocrites.346 For Tyconius, Revelation 18 is about the final separation and the judgment of the devil’s body, and Revelation 19 is about the vindication and celebration of the true church. Rev 19:1–3 describes the joy of saints in heaven who are separated from the great harlot and sing Alleluia: Haec dicit ecclesia, cum discessio facta fuerit et cum apertius vindicata.347 The church says these things when the departure (2  Thess 2:3b) will have happened and when she is vindicated more openly.

On that day, the “Man of sin,” the “mystery of evil,” that is, the whole body of the devil will be completely cut off from the church, and the bipartite nature of the church will cease to exist. The church will accomplish her mission of warning, saving but also punishing those who did not listen to her voice. On that day, the church will be the gleaming city described in Rev 21:18. The abundance of direct and indirect examples of the motif of discessio in both of Tyconius’ works proves its significance in his understanding of the church’s eschatological time. Though Tyconius focuses on the present situation of the church, he does not neglect her future perspective. In the present, he does see the signs that call for an increased sense of watchfulness as the final persecution approaches. As it has been noted above, this motif is often clustered with Gen 19, the image of Lot’s departure from Sodom. For that reason, it seems preferable to speak mainly about the departure of the true church, instead of falling away or rebellion of the false church, although we can draw both meanings from some passages. This study underlines a deliberate decision by individuals who are presently able to separate themselves spiritually from the false Christians. The departure of the evil brothers from the Lord’s body now, both physically and spiritually, depends on them, but the time of the final and irrevocable separation between good and evil is in God’s hands. Their collaboration with the devil does not give them the authority to decide when to depart and therefore reveal the “Man of sin.” The true church, however, participating in God’s wisdom, is the initiator of the departure from the “mystery of evil.” The unmasked mystery of the “Man of sin” will constitute a separate entity, forever outside the Lord’s body.

Cf. EA IV, 443–9. See also EA IV, 320–22 which describes the church’s celebration over the ruin of Babylon throughout the world and her future peace after the separation. 347 EA VI, 406–7. 345 346

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

181

The following minor motif, drawn from 2 Thess 2:7c, helps us to further understand the present and future aspects of the church’s existence. 3.2 De medio In Tyconius’ logic of argumentation, the ending clause of 2 Thess 2:7, ἐκ μέσου γένηται (v. 7c), is thematically tied with the above-discussed motif of discessio (v. 3b). Before we analyse this new motif, let us glance at the context of this clause in the letter itself: τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας· μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται. For the mystery of lawlessness is already working, but only until the one holding it back is gone from the midst.

We find two close parallels to this unique phrase, ἐκ μέσου γένηται, in two Pauline letters – 1 Cor 5:2 and Col 2:14. In the first case, the Corinthians are scolded by Paul for allowing the incestuous man to stay in their community. They are commanded by Paul to remove such a person “from their midst” (ἵνα ἀρθῇ ἐκ μέσου ὑμῶν). In the second case, Paul describes the liberation of humanity, by Christ’s death on the cross, from the bond of the Mosaic Law. This salvific act of the Lord has taken the observances of the Old Covenant “from their midst” (καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου). The object to be removed in 2 Thess 2:7 is ὁ κατέχων, whose displacement will allow the “Man of Lawlessness to appear” (cf. 2:3c.8a). The question that scholars have often asked is whether the removal of the restraining one will be through violent348 or voluntary means.349 From the apocalyptic understanding of history, it can certainly be no one other than God who removes ὁ κατέχων.350 Stephen Brown notes that, in the mythic imagery, the term μέσος (“middle” or “center”) refers to a sacred center and is “a synecdoche for the Garden of Eden which focuses on the middle of the Garden where the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil were rooted in the ground and lifted their branches to heaven”351 (cf. Gen 2:9 and 3:3). Michael Fishbane calls the paradise of Eden an axis mundi (center of the world) from which all life flows. It is actually the “mountain of God” (Ezek 28:14) from which the four rivers that flow down and mark off the four quadrants of the world have their beSee von Dobschütz, Die Thessalonicherbriefe, 282. See Henry W. Fulford, ed., The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus: Revised Version Edited for the Use of Schools (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911), 41–42; Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 170; Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 318. 350 Cf. Paul-Gerhard Müller, Der Erste und Zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher, 270. 351 Stephen G. Brown, “The Intertextuality of Isaiah 66.17 and 2 Thessalonians 2.7: A Solution for the ‘Restrainer’ Problem,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, eds. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, JSNT Supplement Series 83 / SSEJC 1 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 263–64. 348 349

182

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

ginning.352 According to Fishbane “this Mountain-Garden complex, or sacred center provides a symbolic structure of such magnitude that it is preserved and transformed as a paradigm throughout biblical history and the history of Israel.”353 Brown believes that Paul’s audience was familiar with the concept of a “middle,” which was actually widespread in the ancient world.354 Tyconius borrows the expression ἐκ μέσου from 2 Thess 2:7c and develops it into a supplementary motif of discessio (2 Thess 2:3b). He follows the VL translation of this phrase, which is de medio355 (“from the midst”), though sometimes he also uses the variant e medio. As we have discussed earlier, the church will “depart” “from the midst of” the “mystery of evil,” but now she must be aware of being “in the midst of” this complex reality. It is why Tyconius introduces the counterbalanced motif of in medio (“in the midst”).356 The “Man of sin” is in the midst of the church where he secretly works and where he will be openly punished and annihilated. The distribution of the de medio motif in the Liber Regularum is peculiar. We find it once in the first Rule, as part of the quotation from 2 Thess 2:7, and all the other occurrences are located in Rules Four and Seven. The motif of in medio prevails in Rule Four, somehow preparing the background for the de medio motif in the seventh Rule. This tactic helps Tyconius to emphasise the contrast between the present and future conditions of the church. Granting his own meaning to this motif, the exegete also applies it to other biblical passages, somehow drawing them away from their original context and placing them in light of this governing principle. We find many such examples in the OT texts, particularly in the Book of Ezekiel (chs. 26–28, 32, 37). The occurrence of the de medio motif in the first Rule shows its clear connection with 2 Thess 2:3b: Templum enim bipertitum est, cuius pars altera, quamuis lapidibus magnis extruatur, destruitur, neque in eo lapis super lapidem relinquetur. Istius nobis iugis adventus cavendus est, donec de medio eius discedat ecclesia.357 For the temple is bipartite; and its other part is being destroyed, although it is built out of great stones, and in it a stone will not be left upon a stone (cf. Matt 24:2). The immediate

Cf. Michael A. Fishbane, “The Sacred Center: The Symbolic Structure of the Bible,” in Texts and Responses: Studies Presented to Nahum N. Glatzer on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday by his Students, eds. Michael A. Fishbane and Paul R. Flohr (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 9. 353 Ibid., 26. 354 Brown, “The Intertextuality of Isaiah 66.17 and 2 Thessalonians 2.7,” 264. See also Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane. The Nature of Religion. The significance of religious myth, symbolism, and ritual within life and culture, trans. Willard R. Trask (New York: Brace & World, 1963) (orig. pub. Das Heilige und das Profane [Hamburg: Vom Wesen des Religiösen, 1957]). 355 Cf. VL, vol. 25:1, 335–36. 356 Cf. Bright, The Book of Rules, 49–50. 357 LR I, 135–9. 352

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

183

advent of this to us must be watched out for until from the midst (2 Thess 2:7c) the church may depart (2 Thess 2:3b).

This statement comprehensibly outlines Tyconius’ vision of the condition of the bipartite church. The prospect of departing from this reality is certain, but first, those who really belong to the body of the Lord must learn something about this situation, which Tyconius tries to explain in Rule Four. The logic of this Rule considers species (particular) as historical referents in relation to the biblical text, and genus (general) as figurative, spiritual or eschatological referents to the bipartite church or the broader narrative of salvation history. One of the texts which helps Tyconius to develop the de medio motif is Ezek 37:21–28. This pericope describes the prophecy of an eternal and Messianic unification of the two divided kingdoms of the Jews. Israel shall be taken “from the midst (de medio)358 of the nations” and led to the land of Israel (v. 21). David, the servant of God, will be “in the midst (in medio)” of them “as their prince forever” (v. 24),359 and God’s sanctuary will be “in the midst (in medio) of them forever” (v. 26).360 The promise of this liberation is given to all the nations when they are sanctified “in the midst (in medio) of” the land of Israel (v.  28).361 Working on these passages, Tyconius demonstrates the division in the body of the church, as well as affirms the Lord’s presence now and in the future among his elected people. At present, the battle between servants and enemies of God takes place inside the bipartite church which Tyconius recognises also in the city of Nineveh or other gentile cities. The Lord allows the North to attack the South, changing Nineveh into the desert, “and flocks, all the beasts of the earth will pasture in its midst (in medio).”362 Yet at the same time, the righteous Lord is “in the midst” (in medio) of them (cf. Zeph 2:13– 358 Cf. LR IV, 518–20: “Haec dicit Dominus: Ecce ego accipiam omnem domum Israhel de medio gentium in quas ingressi sunt illic.” (“Thus says the Lord, Behold I will take all the house of Israel from the midst of the nations among which they have gone”). 359 Cf. LR IV, 527.1–3: “Et servus meus David princeps in medio eorum erit, pastor unus omnium qui in praeceptis meis ambulabunt et iudicia mea custodient et facient ea.” (“And my servant David will be the prince in the midst of them, one shepherd over all who will walk in my ordinances and keep my statutes and do them”). 360 Cf. LR IV, 57–8: “et ponam sancta mea in medio eorum in saecula.” (“and I will place my sanctuary in the midst of them forever”). 361 Cf. LR IV, 59–11: “Et scient gentes quia ego sum Dominus qui sanctifico eos, dum sunt sancti in medio eorum in saecula, dicit Dominus.” (“And the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies them, while they are sanctified forever in the midst of them, says the Lord”). 362 Cf. LR IV, 13.28–12: “Ex extendet inquit manum suam in Aquilonem – id est populum solis alienum adversum Meridiano – et perdet Assyrium, et ponet illam Nineve exterminium sine aqua in desertum, et pascentur in medio eius greges, omnes bestiae terrae.” (“He said: And he will extend his hand to the North – that is, to the foreign people of the sun, opposite the South – and he will destroy Assyria, and he will set Nineveh in destruction without water in a desert, and flocks, all the beasts of the earth, will pasture in its midst” [Zeph 2:13–3:5]).

184

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

3:5).363 The Donatists associated the North with the Roman Empire; therefore, the Caecilianists were correlated with everything that is false. The Donatists, being located in the South, considered themselves the chosen remnant that experiences persecution and oppression. Tyconius explains in the seventh Rule that, for him, it is just a symbolic distinction because good and evil are found both in the North and in the South.364 Another location which represents the bipartite church is Egypt.365 The Pharaoh king of Egypt and those who belong to him are evil brothers who persecute the saints. These evil brothers are counted as those who “lay down in the midst (in medio) of the uncircumcised (Ezek 32:32),”366 that means, apart from the covenant people. This prophecy, already fulfilled in history, will occur throughout the whole world on the “day of the Lord.”367 The evil members of the covenant body, who, living like Egyptians but pretending to be the sons of Israel, will receive the judgment of death and will be thrown out of the church. For Tyconius, circumcision and baptism are synonymous concepts that refer to membership in the body of the Lord. The evil brothers will be counted as non-baptised when the Lord’s judgment starts, and it will take place in the church: “And many nations will sorrow over you [Egypt]; and their kings will be panic-stricken when my sword speeds over their faces in their midst (in medio); it will be to their downfall on the day of your downfall (Ezek 32:10).”368 The good part of Egypt must be constantly aware of evil in its midst. As a similar theme of God’s justice and punishment, expressed with the concept of in medio, Tyconius notes in Ezek 26:15–18; 27:27–36 with regard to the fate of the city of Sor: “will the islands not be shaken by the sound of your Cf. LR IV, 13.21–2: “Dominus autem iustus in medio eius non facit iniustum.” (“However, the righteous Lord in its midst will not commit injustice”). V has medio] templo (Burkitt) / medio R: templo VPEO. 364 See LR VII, 4.316–17. 365 See LR IV, 14.1. 366 Cf. LR IV, 14.37–12: “Item per Ezechielem minatur Deus regi Aegyptiorum et eius multitudini, quod essent terribiles in sanctos, inter incircumcisos deputari, quod non convenit nisi in eos qui sibi circumcisione, id est sacris, blandiuntur. Quoniam igitur dedit timorem suum super terram vitae, dormiet in medio incircumcisorum.” (“Also, through Ezekiel, God warns that the king of Egypt and his multitudes, because they behaved terribly toward the saints, are counted in the midst of the uncircumcised because it does not apply except to those who are themselves made pleasing, that is, sacred, by circumcision. Consequently, because he spread his terror over the land of the living, he shall lay down in the midst of the uncircumcised” [Ezek 32:32]). 367 Cf. LR IV, 14.24–6: “Fiet autem et generaliter novissimo die, quando cum Aegyptis filii testamenti ceciderint, Aegyptiorum more viventes.” (“However, it will happen also generally on the last day, since the sons of the covenant died with the Egyptians, living by the customs of the Egyptians”). 368 LR IV, 14.327.1–3: “Et contristabuntur super te multae nationes, et reges earum mentis alienatione stupebunt cum volabit gladius meus super facies eorum in medio eorum, erit ad ruinam suam ex die ruinae tuae.” 363

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

185

downfall in the groan of the wounded, while they are being slain by the sword in your midst (in medio)? (26:15).”369 On that future eschatological day of the Lord, Sor will be “sorrowful in the sea, in the midst (in medio) of the depths of the water (27:32).”370 In this way, Tyconius describes the disintegration of the inauthentic part of the church. At present, God allows the mingling of holy and unholy realities, but, at the same time, Tyconius points out that the radical transformation of that situation will take place throughout the whole world at the eschaton. The city of Tyre is also a symbolic representation of the church in the midst of all the nations “in which the whole world has dealings for eternal life.”371 Tyconius sees the prophecy of Isaiah (24:1–13) as completely fulfilled only on the day of the Lord, when justice and punishment will occur.372 The long quotation from Isaiah ends with the statement: “All these things will happen to the earth in the midst (in medio) of the nations (v. 13)”373 and Tyconius raises the question: “who are the people in whose midst (in quarum medio) these things take place?”374 The answer to this question is found in the exegete’s indication that he is speaking about the spiritual matters of the bipartite church revealed in Scripture,375 and one of these important matters is the spiritual death of people who oppose God:376 Omnia spiritaliter, sicut de eadem Babylonia scriptum est: Felix est qui obtinebit et conlidet parvulos tuos ad petram. Neque enim regem Medorum quod obtinuerit adversum Babylonem dixit felicem, et non Ecclesiam quae obtinet et conlidet filios Babylonis ad petram scandali. Obtinet autem, sicut scriptum est: Qui obtinet modo, donec de medio fiat.377 All things are to be considered spiritually, just as it is written about this same Babylon: Happy is he who will take hold of and will dash your little ones against the rock (Ps 137:9). For he did not call the king of the Medes happy because the king may have persevered against 369 Cf. LR IV, 15.121–24: “Nam et de Sor scriptum est: Haec dicit Dominus ad Sor: Nonne a voce ruinae tuae in gemitu vulneratorum, dum interficiuntur gladio in medio tui, commovebuntur insulae?” 370 LR IV, 15.111–12: “Nunc autem contrita es in mari, in profundo aquae commixtio tua, et omnis congregatio tua in medio tui.” 371 Cf. LR IV, 15.221: “Tyrus bipertita est” (“Tyre is bipartite”); 15.229.1–3: “Quod si veniant, quae utilitas praedixisse futura Tyro commercia omnibus regnis terrae, si non Tyrus Ecclesia est in qua orbis terrarum negotium est aeternae vitae?” (“Even if they should come, what use was it to have predicted that Tyre was about to have business with all the kingdoms of the earth [Isa 23:17] if Tyre is not the church in which the whole world has dealings for eternal life?”). 372 See LR IV, 15.318–21. 373 LR IV, 15.36–7: “Haec omnia erunt terrae in medio gentium.” 374 LR IV, 15.37–8: “quae sunt gentes in quarum medio ista sunt?” 375 LR IV, 15.49–10: “Etsi aliqua horum videntur et iam perspicue fieri, tamen omnia spiritalia sunt.” (“Even if some of these things are clearly seen to have happened already, nevertheless, all things are spiritual”). 376 See LR IV, 15.410–17, 15.56–10, 1816–17. 377 LR IV, 19.114–20.

186

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

Babylon, and not the church which shall take hold of and shall dash the children of Babylon against the stone of stumbling. But he shall take hold, just as it is written: He who now takes hold, then will he come from the midst (2 Thess 2:7bc).

Then, in order to help his readers to comprehend his hermeneutical logic, Tyconius adds the comment: “And after many species and genus in a concluding summary, he [Paul] openly shows that all nations are Babylon and that they perish ‘on earth’ and also ‘in his mountains,’ that is, in the church.”378 As the minor motif of in medio illustrates the real but temporal unity of two foreign people, so the minor motif of de medio affirms the real and eternal separation in the church. In other words, in medio is located in the horizon of the present time, while de medio is in the horizon of the eschatological time. We can also say that in medio refers to the hidden reality, while de medio refers to the revealed reality. All the nations – that is, the evil brothers from all over the world – will see God’s justice in the church: “all nations which are under heaven in the city of God drink the wrath of God and are persecuted there (cf. Jer 25:15–19).”379 In order to highlight the locus of God’s wrath and justice, Tyconius twice cites the same statement of Jeremiah that contains the expression in medio: “the sword, which I am sending in their midst” (vv. 16 and 27), that is, in the midst of the church.380 The exegete suggests that Jeremiah, who was a prophet to the people of God, that is, to those who were inside the covenant community, speaks to all the nations that are in the city of God, that is, to the whole church.381 To that city, Satan continually sends his best warriors in order to maintain the bipartite status of the church and continue his spiritual warfare against it.382 These few examples introduce the reader of the Liber Regularum to the eschatological mystery of the church illustrated in the Scriptures. The bipartite church is an arena of the demonic and divine war that happens in the soul of each believer. It is right to ask if that means that believing and not believing coincide in the Christian. Does Christian nature imply faith but also doubt? Does it mean that Christian life is a continuous inner struggle between good and evil, and therefore, must this reality be accepted as something normal and necessary? It is, of course, a temporal stage of the church that reveals the truthfulness and falsehood of her members and determines their eternal condition. 378 LR IV, 19.120–23: “Et post multa speciei et generis in clausula periochae aperte ostendit omnes gentes esse Babylonem et eas in terra atque in montibus suis, id est in Ecclesia, perdere.” 379 LR IV, 20.124–25: “Item omnes gentes quae sub caelo sunt in civitate Dei iram Dei bibere et illic percuti.” 380 Cf. LR IV, 20.128.1.17–18: “quem ego mitto in medio illarum … in medio vestrum.” 381 LR IV, 20.35–7: “Quodsi tunc quoque et nunc in Ecclesia locutus est, manifestum est et omnes gentes illic ubi Hieremias loquitur conveniri in principali eorum parte.” (“But even if it was spoken then and also now in the church, it is evident that Jeremiah says that all the nations therein are meant in their principal part”). 382 Cf. LR IV, 20.37–12.

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

187

From this temporal stage, the church separates definitively at the eschaton, but already at present she is called to do so spiritually. In the seventh Rule, entitled On the Devil and His Body, Tyconius elaborates on the minor motif of de medio, which was prepared by the opposite concept of in medio, in the fourth Rule. One of the important eschatological themes in the last Rule of the Liber Regularum is the distinction between two kingdoms: the Southern kingdom ruled by Christ, and the northern kingdom dominated by the devil. As we have said earlier, for Tyconius, both these kingdoms are universal and co-exist in opposition, awaiting the eschaton. This mingled reality serves God’s purpose to exterminate what is unholy and to purify what is holy: Ecce ego super te Gog, principem Ros, Mesoc et Tobel. Et congregabo te et deducam te et ponam te a novissimo Aquilone, et adducam te super montes Israhel, et perdam arcum tuum de manu tua sinistra, et sagittas tuas de manu tua dextera, et deiciam te super montes Israhel. Hoc autem geritur a passione Domini, quoadusque de medio eiusdem mysterii facinoris discedat Ecclesia quae detinet, ut in tempore suo detegatur impietas, sicut apostolus dicit: Et nunc quid detineat scitis, ut in suo tempore detegatur. Mysterium enim iam operatur facinoris, tantum ut qui detinens detinet modo, quodusque de medio fiat; et tunc revelabitur ille impius.383 Behold, I will bring against you Gog, prince of Ros, Mesoc and Tobel. And I will gather you, and lead you away and set you down from the uttermost parts of the North, and will bring you upon the mountains of Israel; and I will strike your bow from your left hand and your arrows from your right hand, and I will cast you down upon the mountains of Israel (Ezek 39:1–4). However, this is produced by [from the time of] the suffering of the Lord, until from the midst of this same mystery of evil the church which detains (2 Thess 2:7ab) departs (2 Thess 2:3b), in order that in his time impiety may be exposed, just as the apostles says: And now you know what detains, so that in his time he may be revealed. For the mystery of evil is already at work, until he who detains now is taken from the midst; and then that impious one will be revealed (2 Thess 2:6–8a).

The exegete binds Ezek 39:1–4 with 2 Thess 2:3b.6–8a, showing the connection between king Gog and the impious of 2 Thess 2:8a. Gog’s attempts to conquer the Promised Land will be destroyed by the Lord who promises to knock the weapons out of his hands. He enters the land of God, but he and his army fall there, and their corpses are eaten by birds and beasts (cf. Ezek 39:17–20; Rev 19:17–21). This image reflects the situation of the bipartite church. The enemy is inside and acts secretly within her, but the church is assured of the Lord’s protection. She will depart “from the midst” (de medio) of the “mystery of evil” (mysterium facinoris). Tyconius seems to emphasise that God does not hesitate to allow the incorporation of ungodliness in the midst of his servants, since it justifies his just judgment. The fate of the evil body symbolised in the hubris of the prince of Tyre, who attempts to make himself equal to God,384 is described by Tyconius again with the help of the prophet Ezekiel. The symbolic language of Ezek 28:2–19 383 384

LR VII, 4.317.1–11. See LR VII, 8–13.

188

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

matches with the exegete’s spiritual understanding of the bipartite church. It allows him to decipher three stages in the existence of the devil’s body. The first one refers to God’s favour toward the prince of Tyre: The day on which you were created I placed you along with the cherubim on the holy mountain of God, you were in the midst (in medio) of the stones of fire, you were without blemish ever since the day [you] were created, until your iniquities were discovered in you by the multitude of your business (Ezek 28:14–15).385

Every human being has been created true, good, and beautiful and allowed to participate in the divine world in the midst of the church. Being inside the church, however, is not imposed or enforced and requires a deliberate decision of every single person to live in faith, hope and love. By a free act of will the members of the devil’s body have fallen from the holiness in which they were created. This is the second stage of their existence. They voluntarily separated from God’s plan and in their hearts rebelled against their Creator: “The cherubim led you away from the midst (de medio) of the stones of fire … On account of the multitude of your sins and the iniquity of your business I have contaminated your holy things (Ezek 28:16).”386 The spiritual condition of the individual, deprived of the coherence with his Creator, leads to sinfulness and consequently to separation. Such a person joins the spiritual body of the devil, in which he finds compatibility with his actions, and the delectation of being away from God is deepened and solidified.387 Spiritual separation does not mean the physical distancing from those who remain faithful to God. That is why the conflict in the bipartite church is continuous and intense. There is a spiritual awareness of the temporary possibility of departing from and returning to the church. The third and final stage cements the individual’s decision forever and reveals its consequences: “And I will bring forth a fire from your midst (de medio), this will devour you (Ezek 28:18).”388 The punishment of the devil’s body comes from the heart of the church in which it hides and executes its desires. The evildoer in the church condemns himself by an act of his own free will, which makes him incapable forever of desiring differently than the false body to which he belongs. A few paragraphs further, Tyconius comes back to the same pronouncements of Ezekiel and again clarifies that the devil’s body was not in God’s plan, but its formation was allowed by God. The present enemy body was set “in the midst (in medio) of the stones of fire (Ezek 28:14),” namely in the midst of “the holy men who together make

LR VII, 84’–8’: “Ex qua die creatus es tu cum cherubim posui te in monte sancto Dei, fuisti in medio lapidum igneorum, abisti sine macula tu in diebus tuis ex qua die creatus es tu, donec invenirentur iniquitates tuae in te a multitudine negotiationis tuae.” 386 LR VII, 89’–10’.11’–13’: “abduxit te cherubim de medio lapidum igneorum … Propter multitudinem peccatorum tuorum in terram proieci te, in conspectu regum dedi te dehonestari.” 387 See LR VII, 810–15. 388 LR VII, 815’: “Et educam ignem de medio tui, hic te devorabit.” 385

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

189

up the mountain of God,”389 that is, the church. She is the spiritual house built of living stones (cf. 1 Pet 2:5), which as Tyconius underlines, becomes a fiery house that burns in the evil brothers.390 He not only points to the separation in the church and her punitive function, but also highlights an anthropological aspect of the eschatological reality. The sinful conscience of the evil brothers separates them from the church: “For when a man sins, he is cast down from the mountain of God” and deserted by the Spirit.391 Tyconius again repeats Ezek 28:16: “The cherubim drove you out from the midst (de medio) of the stones of fire”392 and explains that “the cherubim is a minister of God, because he excluded, spiritually, all the evil ones from the church; for he who does not have a “‘wedding garment’ in this present world is excluded from the midst (de medio) ‘of the banquet’ (cf. Matt 22:11ff).”393 We have to remember that Tyconius, with the help of these biblical texts, is describing the spiritual reality of the church and her members. In this way, he shows how Scripture continually speaks about the church’s bipartite situation and the spiritual processes that happen within her. Tyconius concludes the Liber Regularum by clustering his most inspirational texts from Ezekiel and Genesis with 2 Thessalonians 2, somehow summarising his eschatological understanding of the bipartite church: Educam ignem de medio tui, hic te devorabit. Ignis Ecclesia est, quae cum discesserit e medio mysterii facinoris tunc pluet ignem Dominus a Domino de Ecclesia, sicut scriptum est: Sol exortus est super terram, et Loth intravit in Segor, et pluit Dominus super Sodomam et Gomorram sulphur et ignem a Domino de caelo … In Genesi iterum scriptum est: Cum contereret Deus omnes civitates in circuitu, commemoratus est Deus Abrahae, et emisit Loth e medio subversionis, cum subverteret Deus civitates in quibus habitat in eis Loth. Numquid Loth non merebatur propria iustitia liberari, ut diceret Scriptura: Commemoratus est Deus Abrahae, et emisit Loth e medio subversionis? … Sed prophetia est futurae discessionis. Memor enim Deus promissionis ad Abraham eiecit Loth de omnibus civitatibus Sodomorum, quibus veniet ignis ex igni Ecclesiae, quae de medio eorum educetur.394 I will bring forth a fire from your midst, it will devour you (Ezek 28:18). The fire is the church which, when it has departed from the midst of the mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7ca), The Lord then will rain fire from the church, just as it is written: The sun rose upon the earth, and Lot LR VII, 1518–20: “In medio lapidum igneorum fuisti, id est hominum sanctorum, qui adunati montem Dei faciunt.” 390 LR VII, 16.11–4: “Lapides Ecclesiam esse sic dicit Petrus: Et vos fratres tamquam lapides vivi coaedificamini domus spiritalis, quam domum igneam esse et hanc in malos fratres ardere.” (“Peter calls the church the stones: And you, brothers, as living stones be built up for a spiritual house, which God says is a fiery house and that it burns in evil brothers”). 391 Cf. LR VII, 16.17–9: “Cum enim peccat homo, deicitur de monte Dei, et non erit ignifer amisso Spiritu.” 392 LR VII, 16.210–11: “abduxit te cherubim de medio lapidum igneorum.” 393 LR VII, 16.211–13: “Cherubim ministerium Dei est, quod exclusit universos malos de Ecclesia, sed spiritaliter. Qui enim vestitum nuptialem non habet, hic in saeculo excluditur de medio recumbentium.” 394 LR VII, 18.21–6.9–15.16–20. 389

190

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

entered into Segor. And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire by the Lord from heaven (Gen 19:23–24) … In Genesis, likewise, it is written: When God destroyed all the cities round about, God remembered Abraham, and he delivered Lot from the midst of (cf. 2 Thess 2:7c) destruction, when God destroyed the cities in which Lot dwells (Gen 19:29). Was not Lot entitled to be delivered by his own righteousness, that the Scriptures might say: God remembered Abraham, and he delivered Lot from the midst of destruction? … But the prophecy is of a future departure (2 Thess 2:3b); for God, mindful of the promise to Abraham, cast Lot out from all the cities of Sodom to which will come the fire out of the fire of the church, which will be brought from their midst (cf. 2 Thess 2:7c).

This minor motif of e / de medio (2 Thess 2:7c) is clearly in service of the above-discussed major motif of discessio (2 Thess 2:3b). The moment of the church’s departure from the “mystery of evil” activates the Revelation of the “Man of sin,” the final persecution and then God’s wrath and justice. Five occurrences of the discussed minor motif in the above passage underline Tyconius’ insistence on the church’s warning of her evil members before the invisible reality turns into the visible one. It is worth observing that both the first Rule On the Lord and His Body, and the last Rule On the Devil and His Body, end with the motif of de medio of 2 Thess 2:7c. It seems that Tyconius’ framing of these two Rules creates a kind of inclusio structure in order to emphasise the centrality of the fourth Rule, in which the logic of species and genus speaks about the present situation of the church immersed “in the midst” (in medio) of the evil world. This hermeneutical logic confirms that 2 Thess 2:7c is Tyconius’ foundational text, which becomes a main criterion for the interpretation of other biblical passages, especially from Ezekiel, in order to form the ecclesiological and anthropological understanding of his eschatology. We shall further justify these conclusions as we analyse the occurrences of the in / de medio motif in Tyconius’ Expositio Apocalypseos. The similar logic in the distribution of these minor motifs, as in the Liber Regularum, can be noticed in his Commentary. In the first part of his exposition, Tyconius gives more attention to the motif in medio, describing the present situation of the church, in order to focus in the second part on the future condition of the church, conveyed in the motif de medio. The first occurrence of the in medio motif in Tyconius’ Commentary is found in Rev 1:13a, where the exegete confirms the unity of Christ, as the Head, with his body: Et vidi septem candelabra avrea, et in medio candelabrorum similem filio hominis vestitum podere, id est Christum indutum ipsa septem candelabra.395 And I saw seven golden candlesticks. And in the midst of the candlesticks one like the Son of Man clothed with a garment (Rev 1:12b–13a), that is Christ clothed with these seven candlesticks.

395

EA I, 11–3.

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

191

For Tyconius, the seven candlesticks, seven stars (Rev 1:16.20; 2:1; 3:1) or the seven churches, represent one and the same church.396 The Son of Man also identifies himself as the church.397 Christ is in the midst of the church with which he is clothed, as much as the church is in Christ.398 The true church is not abandoned to the power of the “Man of sin,” but is assured of the hidden presence of Christ in her midst. We must, however, remember that the church is bipartite. Still, in his comments on Rev 1:13, Tyconius recalls the Pauline image of the church as “a great house” which contains gold and silver, but also wood or clay vessels (cf. 2 Tim 2:20). These various materials symbolise different categories of Christians. The exegete binds this verse with the command of Isaiah to the treasure bearers in the temple to leave the unclean city of Jerusalem: Et iterum exite de medio eius, qui fertis vasa domini, cum qui ferunt, ipsi sunt vasa.399 Go out from her midst, you who carry the vessels of the Lord (Isa 52:11), although those who carry are vessels themselves.

Through this symbolic language Tyconius shows the amalgamation that exists in the bipartite church and the necessity of separation. By being in constant confrontation with the evil members of the church, the good brothers are tested in love and patience. As Tyconius points out, this will be intensified at the end of times, when the church will be like “the brass of Lebanon tried in a furnace (cf. Rev 1:15)”: “For Lebanon is a mountain in Judea. From this it is shown that in Judea, that is, among brothers, the body of Christ is tried, especially in the last time.”400 As we have noticed earlier, the persecution of the church in North Africa is only an illustration of the spiritual situation of the whole church. The faithful Christians participate in the sufferings of Christ: Et iterum: Ego recipiam vos in medium Ierusalem, sicut recipitur argentum et aurum, aeramentum et ferrum, stannum et plumbum, in medio camino ad insufflandum in illud ignem, ut confletur; ita recipiam in ira mea et congregabo et conflabo vos et insufflabo insufflationem igni irae meae, et conflabimini in medio eius.401 And again: I will take you into the midst of Jerusalem, just as silver and gold, bronze and iron, and tin and lead are gathered into the midst of a furnace for the purpose of blowing fire on them so that they are melted. Thus, I will take you in my wrath and will gather you and 396 According to the logic of the fifth mystical Rule, the number seven should not be taken literally. It signifies completeness, totality and wholeness. See LR V, 4.115–17.1–2. See also EA I, 116–11. 397 See also LR I, 133–4. 398 EA I, 13–5: “Sive autem filius hominis, sive septem candelabra, sive septem stellae, ecclesia est.” (“But whether the Son of Man, or the seven candlesticks, or the seven stars, it is the church”). 399 EA I, 117–18. Cf. Rev 18:4. 400 EA I, 58–11: “Libanus enim mons est in Iudaea; exinde ostenditur quod in Iudaea, id est inter fratres, Christi corpus ignitur, praecipue novissime.” 401 EA I, 522–27.

192

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

melt you, and I will blow the fire of my wrath on you, and you will be melted in the midst of it (Ezek 22:19–21).

Tyconius places this comment immediately before his prologue to the whole Commentary on Revelation, in which he explains that the last book of Scripture describes the internal war in the church that the true believer must endure.402 In the letters to the seven churches the exegete distinguishes what the Spirit says to the good part and what it says to the bad part. The church of Ephesus, for example, is praised for her labour and patience (Rev 2:2), but also reprimanded for losing her initial love (Rev 2:4). The Lord, however, guides and protects his body: Angelo ecclesiae Ephesi scribe: haec dicit qui tenet septem stellas in dextera sua, id est qui vos in manu, id est in sua potestate, habet et gubernat, qui ambulat in medio septem candelabrorum aureorum id est in medio vestri.403 To the church at Ephesus the angel writes: The one who holds the seven stars in his right hand says these things (Rev 2:1a), that is, the one who holds and guides you in his hand, that is, in his power, who walks in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks (Rev 2:1b), that is, in your midst.

Commenting on Rev 2:8–9, Tyconius explains that the problem of the church at Smyrna concerns the authenticity of belonging to the community of faith. Those who are outside the church form “the synagogue of Satan,” but pretend to belong to “the synagogue of holy Israel.”404 The term “Jew” mentioned in v. 9 has, for Tyconius, a religious meaning and refers to the righteousness of a believer, who must be recognised not by external, but by internal circumcision.405 Christ provided his church with an ability to recognise the truth, along with the cost of suffering: Dominus enim noster corpori suo exemplum relinquens in medio synagogae sancti Israel, in medio sanctae Ierusalem pertulit Ierusalem interficientem prophetas, pertulit et synagogam Satanae, quae est Sodoma et Aegyptus, ubi testes eius omni die crucifiguntur.406 For our Lord, leaving an example (1 Pet 2:21) to his body in the midst of the synagogue of holy Israel, in the midst of holy Jerusalem, spoke of Jerusalem who kills the prophets (Matt 23:37), and spoke of the synagogue of Satan which is Sodom and Egypt (Rev 11:8) where his witnesses are crucified every day.

Further comments of Tyconius specify that the synagogue of Satan is also in the church.407 The body of the devil besieges the church both from outside and inside. The exegete recalls the example of the prophet Jeremiah, who separated himself spiritually from the council of mockers, but remained in the midst of such reality: See EA I, 528–36. EA I, 121–6. 404 Most likely Tyconius is referring to the schismatics. Cf. EA I, 436–8. 405 Cf. EA I, 194–12. 406 EA I, 1915–19. 407 See EA I, 1927–28.34–35. 402 403

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

193

Nam numquam de medio eorum recessit, ubi nec alterum templum, in quo singularis sederet, nec alter populus, ut separatus fuisset monstratur.408 It is obvious that he never withdrew from their midst (de medio), where there had been no other temple in which he could sit alone, nor another people from which he could be separated.

Tyconius again demonstrates the temporal necessity of the existence of the bipartite church. This situation, though not easily comprehensible, is beneficial for the spiritual growth of the right side of the church. The confrontation, in fact, is not with human powers, but with evil spiritual beings. For Tyconius, the Donatist-Caecilianist schism is only a visible image of the invisible condition of the world, the church and the human being. It is not the profession of faith that distinguishes the true and false church, but the conformity between faith and works.409 Just as the believers of the church at Thyatira (cf. Rev 2:24) were exposed to false teachings,410 so also, the faithful of the church at Sardis (Rev 3:4–6) see the wicked examples and struggle to guard themselves: An nesciebant pauci sancti esse in medio sui inquinatorum multitudinem? Propterea ergo ipsi immaculati permanserunt, nam sancti esse non possunt, nisi gementes et maerentes ob iniquitates quae fiunt in medio ipsorum et spiritalia nequitiae in caelestibus.411 But did the few holy ones not know that in their midst there was a multitude of evildoers? For this reason, therefore, they remained blameless, for they are not able to be holy unless they groan and sigh on account of the iniquity which is done in their midst (Ezek 9:4) and [on account of] the spiritual wickedness in high places (Eph 6:12).

The good members of the church, having Christ as a moral reference, are able to recognise the iniquity in the church. The discernment of the evil brothers is darkened, and they are unable to distinguish who, among those who share the same faith, is righteous. They are also unable to notice the presence of Christ who “has never departed from the midst of the church” (“numquam de medio ecclesiae discessit”)412 and is intimately united with those who belong to him. The locative expressions in the vision of heaven, described in Rev 4:6, confirm the unity in the body of Christ: Dixerat in medio throni sedentem Christum et in circuitu throni seniores; nunc autem dicit in medio throni animalia et in circuitu throni eadem animalia. Haec animalia sunt in medio ecclesiae evangelia; unius throni nomine cuncta videtur uno loco miscere, quia et evangelia in senioribus et seniores in evangeliis non possunt ab alterutro separari. Sic potuerunt esse animalia in circuitu throni, ubi seniores esse iam dixerat, et in medio quoque throni, in Christi scilicet corpore.413

EA I, 1930–33. See EA IV, 94–5, 445–7. 410 See EA I, 301–17. 411 EA I, 362–6. 412 EA I, 4117–18. 413 EA II, 73–11. 408 409

194

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

He had said that Christ was sitting in the midst of the throne and the elders around the throne (cf. Rev 4:2.4); but now he says living creatures are in the midst of the throne and those same living creatures are around the throne. These living creatures are the Gospels in the midst of the church; by the name of one throne all seem to mix in one place, because both the Gospels in the elders and the elders in the Gospels cannot be separated from one another. In this way the living creatures were able to be around the throne, where he had said the elders are now, and also in the midst of the throne, that is, in the body of Christ.

The reader may question who is actually sitting in the midst of the throne – Christ or the four living creatures? Tyconius’ ecclesiologically-oriented hermeneutics explains this apparent inconsistency by seeing an inseparable unity between the living creatures (the Gospels), the church and Christ. The Lord is present in his church and is spiritually united with his authentic followers. The exegete clarifies in his comments on Rev 4:8 that the four living creatures represent one thing – the church (cf. Rev 5:10).414 Similarly, the Lamb in Rev 5:6, described as slain “in the midst (in medio) of the throne and the four living creatures and in the midst (in medio) of the elders,” symbolises Christ, the Head united in suffering with his body.415 The voice of angels calling for worship of the Lamb in Rev 5:11 is the voice of the church “in the midst” (in medio) of the throne, the living creatures, and the elders.416 All these images designate the church and the dynamism of the spiritual mysteries that take place in her. Among the living creatures, there are also agents of the devil who only apparently seem to be just, but, in fact, work secretly against their own brothers. Commenting on Rev 6:5–6, Tyconius emphasises that the authority of the church to “hold back” the “mystery of evil” protects the mysteries of God and those Christians who decide to authentically live in the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, that is, transforming their lives into a sacrifice of love for brothers and sisters. For Tyconius, the efficacy or validity of a sacrament does not depend upon the moral worthiness of its minister, but rather the spiritual power hidden in them is able to change evildoers into authentic followers of Christ: Et audivi vocem de medio quattuor animalium dicentem: bilibris tritici denario et tres bilibres hordei denario, vinum et oleum ne laeseris. Equus niger falsorum caterva est fratrum, qui, dum se fingunt iustitiae libram tenere, socios laedunt per opera tenebrarum. Dum enim in medio animalium dicitur ne laeseris, ostenditur illic esse qui laedit. Describit mysterium

414 Cf. EA II, 105–7: “Nam quomodo animal cum sex alis potest simile esse aquilae, quae habet duas alas, nisi quia quattuor animalia unum sunt?” (“For how can a living creature with six wings be similar to an eagle, which has two wings, unless the four living creatures represent one thing?”); 2510–11: “Ostendit animalia et seniores ecclesiam esse.” (“He [John] shows that the living creatures and the elders are the church”). 415 See EA II, 221–7. 416 Cf. EA II, 263–4: “Quid sit thronus, animalia, seniores, in quorum medio vocem audivit, ostendit.” (“He shows what the throne, the living creatures, and the elders are, in whose midst (cf. 2 Thess 2:7) he heard a voice”).

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

195

facinoris et spiritalia nequitiae in caelestibus, quibus non permittitur neque in se propter alios neque in aliis vim sacramentorum violare.417 And I heard a voice from the midst of the four living creatures saying: A quart of wheat for a denarius and three quarts of barley for a denarius. Do not harm the wine and oil (Rev 6:6). The black horse is the crowd of false brothers, who, while they think they are holding a scale of justice, harm their companions through works of darkness (Rom 13:12; cf. 2 Thess 2:7). For when it is said in the midst of the living creatures: Do not harm, it is shown there that there is one who harms. He describes the mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7a) and spirits of wickedness in high places (Eph 6:12), which are not permitted to invalidate the power of the sacraments either in themselves on account of others, or in others.

The same truth is reinforced in his comments on Rev 7:3, where the voice of an angel from the east forbids the other four angels, that is, the left part, to harm the servants of God before the appointed time: Imperium domini est, quod angelus, id est ecclesia, adnuntiat, et dicit sinistrae parti laedenti ne laeseris. Haec est vox quae in medio quattuor animalium dicit laedenti: Vinum et oleum ne laeseris. Praecepit dominus terram suam spiritalem non laedi, quousque omnes signentur.418 He announces that the kingdom of the Lord is what the angel is, that is, the church. And he says to the left part, which is causing harm: Do not harm. This is the [same] voice that, in the midst of the four living creatures, says to the one causing harm: Do not harm the wine and oil (cf. Rev 6:6). The Lord commands that his spiritual earth not be harmed until all are sealed.

Those who belong to Christ are sheltered by him and are part of God’s mysteries. Tyconius again emphasises this fact when he explains Rev 7:17 in light of Rev 5:7. He shows, in his own understanding of terms, the mutual correlation between Christ and his body: Quoniam agnus qui sedet in medio throni pascet eos. Agnum dixerat accepisse a sedente in throno librum; nunc agnum dicit in medio throni sedere, id est Christum in medio ecclesiae. Ipsa est thronus eius, cum qua resurrexit in throno.419 For the Lamb who sits in the midst of the throne will feed them (Rev 7:17). He had said [earlier] that the Lamb took the book from the one sitting on the throne (cf. Rev 5:7). Now he says the Lamb is sitting in the midst of the throne, that is, Christ in the midst of the church. This [church] is his throne, with which he rose again on the throne (cf. Eph 2:5–6; Col 3:1).

The bipartition and dynamism of the body of the church is further seen in Tyconius’ comments on Rev 8:13. The evil brothers are constantly called to conversion by the proclamation in the church and the inner voice of their consciences. Their collaboration with the “mystery of evil” brings the severe judgment of God upon them. They can still convert if they listen to the present warning: Et vidi et audivi unam aquilam volantem in medio caelo et dicentem vocem magna: vae vae vae habitantibus terram, de reliquis vocibus tubae trium angelorum qui tuba canituri sunt.

EA II, 344–13. EA II, 4720–25. 419 EA II, 551–5. 417 418

196

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

Aquilam dicit ecclesiam; volantem in medio caelo, id est in medio sui discurrentem et plagas novissimi temporis magna voce praedicantem.420 And I saw and heard an eagle flying in the midst of heaven, and saying in a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe, to those dwelling upon the earth because of the remaining soundings of the trumpet of the three angels who are about to sound a trumpet (Rev 8:13). He calls the church an eagle flying in the midst of heaven, that is, moving about in the midst of its own members, and preaching with a loud voice the plagues of the last time.

The wrongdoing of the evil brothers is further explained with the image of the two witnesses, mentioned before, whose bodies are thrown into the streets of the great city (Rev 11:8). For Tyconius, these figures who preach the Word of God, represent the good brothers who were persecuted and disdained. The disrespect for the bodies of the two witnesses signifies the rejection of God’s Word by the left part of the church: Et corpus eorum in platea civitatis magnae proicietur. Duorum dixit unum corpus, aliquando autem corpora, ut et numerum testamentorum servaret et ecclesiae unum corpus ostenderet. Corpus non solum de occisis, sed et de vivis dixit. Proicietur, id est spernetur, sicut proiecisti sermones meos retro. In plateis civitatis magnae, id est in medio ecclesiae.421 And their body will be thrown into the streets of the great city (Rev 11:8). About the two he said one body; however, sometimes [he says] bodies (cf. Rev 11:9b). [He uses both singular and plural] to preserve the number of Testaments and show that the body of the church is one. He said body not only about those killed, but also about the living. Will be thrown, that is, will be despised, [as in the passage]: You have thrown my words behind (Ps 50:17). In the streets of the great city, that is in the midst of the church.

We have to remember that Tyconius is speaking about the ongoing conflict within the bipartite church in which the tribulation of the last persecution is recapitulated. The depravity takes place within the church, but it will not be left without God’s response. The one part of Jerusalem “is called spiritually Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord also was crucified (Rev 11:8).”422 As a sign of spiritual punishment, these two places were oppressed with plagues (cf. Gen 18:6–19:28; Exod 7:14–24) even though they are considered, like the hypocrites of Psalm 50, to belong to the holy church. The above examples explain Tyconius’ exegetical understanding of the in medio motif, which permits him to develop the motif of the de medio. The church is the theatre of the warfare between the forces of evil and the faithful servants of God. At present, the technical unity of the two opposing parties is solid and allows for the growth of the persecuted part and the conversion of the persecutors. There is, however, the invisible spiritual separation, which in the future, shall become visible. As Tyconius shows in his comments on Rev 14:6– 7, the church, reminding believers about the forthcoming judgment of God, preaches both the necessity of repentance and liberation from the mixed reality: EA III, 181–6. EA III, 711–7. 422 See EA III, 721–4. 420 421

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

197

Et vidi alium angelum volantem in medio caelo, id est praedicationem in medio ecclesiae discurrentem … Ad hoc enim uno in loco in Africa fit, ut notum sit quod in omni gente fiet, et ecclesia, quae in parte praedicat in Africa, ea ratione in omni gente sic praedicet, cum de medio istius saeculi Babylonis exierit.423 And I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven (Rev 14:6), that is, preaching, running to and fro in the midst of the church … Indeed, for this reason it happens in one place, in Africa, that it might be known what will happen in every nation – and so that the church, which preaches in part in Africa, therefore might also preach in every nation when she has come from the midst of (cf. 2 Thess 2:7c) this age of Babylon (cf. Rev 18:4).

A second angel in Rev 14:8 announces the fall of the great Babylon, which is “the city of the devil,” that is, “the people consenting to him and every corruption,” where “the unrighteousness of the whole world” had its throne, “that is, in the people of the devil.”424 Before it happens, the spiritual church cohabits with the false brothers. The seven angels in Rev 15:1, who also represent the church, execute God’s justice during the final separation of the opposing parties: Et vidi aliud signum in caelo magnum et mirabile, angelos septem, id est ecclesiam, habentes plagas septem novissimas, quoniam in ipsis finita est ira dei. Novissimas dixit, quia semper ira dei percutit populum contumacem septem plagis, id est perfecte, sicut ipse deus in Levitico frequenter repetit: Percutiam vos septem plagis, quae novissimae futurae sunt, cum ecclesia de medio eius exierit.425 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and terrible, seven angels, that is, the church, having the seven last plagues. For in them the wrath of God is completed (Rev 15:1). He said last because the wrath of God always strikes stubborn people with seven plagues, that is, completely, as God himself repeats frequently in Leviticus: I shall strike you with seven plagues (Lev 26:18.21.24.28); these last plagues are going to happen when the church departs (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) from its midst (cf. 2 Thess 2:7c).

At present, the church is attacked on three fronts, as Tyconius explains with the examples of three horses (cf. Rev 6:4.5–6.8). In Rev 16:19, the theme of the threefold division of humanity returns, but within the context of the future eschatological separation: Haec civitas magna omnis omnino populus est, quisquis est sub caelo, qui fiet in tre partes, cum ecclesia divisa fuerit, ut sit gentilitas una pars, et abominatio vastationis altera, et ecclesia, quae exierit de medio ipsius, tertia.426 This great city is all people entirely, everyone who is under heaven, who will be divided into three parts when the church is divided, resulting in the heathen being one part; and the

EA V, 21–2.9–12. Cf. EA V, 31–4.10–13: “Et angelus secundus secutus est, id es pacis futurae praedicatio, dicens: cecidit cecidit Babylon illa magna. Babylonem civitatem diaboli dicit, id est populum ipsi consentientem et omnem corruptelam … Et cum Zacharias totius mundi iniustitiam videret, dictum est illi quod in Babylone haberet sedem, id est in populo diaboli.” 425 EA V, 221–8. 426 EA V, 465–9. 423 424

198

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

abomination of desolation (Matt 24:15), another; and the church, which will have gone out (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) from the midst of (2 Thess 2:7c) her, a third.

The division of humanity is coordinated and determined by the final division in the church. The exegete’s allusion to the motif of departure in 2 Thess 2:3b is bound with the motif of de medio (2 Thess 2:7c). In Rev 18:4, the angel from heaven commands his people “to go out” from Babylon the Great, which for Tyconius designates the universal evil, present also in the evil brothers: Et audivi, inquit, aliam vocem de caelo dicentem: Exite de ea, populus meus, ne communicetis peccatis eius et plagis eius ne laedamini. Plenius hic ostendit Babylonem in duas divisam esse partes, externam et intestinam, ex qua monitis dei etiam perspicue discedet populus sanctus, qui semper ex ea spiritaliter discedit et exiit, sicut per Esaiam dictum est: Exite de medio eius et separamini, qui fertis vasa domini, et immundum nolite tangere.427 And I heard, he said, another voice from heaven saying: Go out from her, my people, so that you do not share in her sins and so that you are not stricken by her plagues (Rev 17:4). Here he shows more fully that Babylon consists of two separate parts, external and internal, out of which also holy people, having been clearly warned by God, will depart, who always depart (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) and go out from her spiritually, as was spoken through Isaiah: Go out from her midst and be separate, you who bear the vessels of the Lord; and touch not the unclean thing (Isa 52:11).

The Donatists justified their physical separation from the Caecilianists by, inter alia, the above-quoted words of Isaiah. Tyconius’ interpretation speaks, instead, about the spiritual separation, which will become visible at the end of time. The binding of the motif of departure / going out with the motif of de medio is also notable here. Tyconius interprets Revelation 21 and 22 as a description of the future church separated from her left side. This future, however, in Tyconius’ conception of time, is recapitulated in a present reality that happens spiritually in the Lord’s body, because the Spirit “mixes each time together, now the present, now the future, and declares more fully when she is taken with great glory by Christ and is separated from every incursion of evil people.”428 The exegete’s comment on Rev 21:27 is one such example: Et non introibit in eam omne immundum et faciens abominationem et mendacium, nisi scripti in libro vitae. Futuri temporis describit ecclesiam, quando iam malis de medio segregatis soli cum Christo boni regnabunt.429 And everything unclean and [everyone] practising abomination and falsehood will not enter into it, but only those written in the book of life (Rev 21:27). He describes the church of the future time when, with the wicked already separated from the midst (cf. 2 Thess 2:7c), only the good will reign with Christ. EA VI, 251–8. EA VII, 3112–15: “Miscet utrumque tempus, nunc presens, nunc futurum, et cum quanta gloria suscipiatur a Christo et separata sit ab omni malorum incursu plenius declarant.” See also LR VI and Tyconius’ comments on Rev 2:21 (EA I, 27); Rev 5:5 (EA II, 21), and Rev 11:9 (EA III, 73). 429 EA VII, 481–4. 427 428

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

199

For Tyconius, the holy city of Jerusalem, presented in Revelation 21 and 22, designates not only the eschatological city but the church from the time of Christ’s passion to eternity.430 The exegete operates on the same minor motif of in medio, describing the undivided reality of the church based on the truth: Et ostendit mihi flumen aquae vitae sicut cristalum exiens a throno dei et agni in medio plateae eius. Fonte baptismi ostendit in medio ecclesiae venientem a deo et Christo. Nam quale decus civitatis esse potest, si flumen per medium plateae eius ad impedimentum habitantium descendat?431 And he showed me a river of the water of life [shining] as crystal, going out from the throne of God and of the Lamb in the midst of its street (Rev 22:1–2a). He showed the fountain of baptism in the midst of the church coming from God and Christ. For how wonderful can a city be, if a river flows down through the midst of its street to the impediment of those living there?

This newly liberated church, after the physical and spiritual separation, is harmonious and authentically benefits from the grace of redemption. The temporal bipartition gives space to the eternal unity of love. 3.3 Adventus Domini 2 Thess 2:8 begins a new section (vv. 8–10) of corrections given to the community of Thessalonica by the author of the letter. The conjunction καί (“and”) and adverb τότε (“then”), which open this section, mark the shift from the present to future events: καὶ τότε ἀποκαλυφθήσεται ὁ ἄνομος, ὃν ὁ κύριος [Ἰησοῦς] ἀνελεῖ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ καὶ καταργήσει τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, and then will be revealed the Lawless one, whom the Lord [Jesus] will consume by the breath of his mouth and will destroy by the appearance of his coming

Paul rarely begins a new sentence with parataxis,432 but the author of 2 Thessalonians 2 does it three times (vv. 6, 8, 11), marking in this way a new temporal perspective. Verses 3b–4 and 6b have already accentuated the coming of the “Man of Lawlessness.” Here, in v. 8, it is again repeated, but with the emphasis on his not-hidden but revealed state. The “Lawless One” will have his own parousia or advent before the advent of the Lord. Frederick Danker and Robert Jewett observe that “in an ironical twist the Lawless One creates his own καιρός (v. 6). That is, he becomes the source of his own endangerment, but instead of being an endangered benefactor, he is the ultimate in anti-beneficence.”433 It is, however, noteworthy that throughout the NT the subject of

See EA VII, 3110, 341–5, 501–6. EA VII, 491–6. 432 See Bauer, BDAG, 494.1.b.β; Blass and Debrunner, A Greek Grammar, § 458. 433 Danker, Jewett, “Jesus as the Apocalyptic Benefactor in Second Thessalonians,” 496. 430 431

200

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

the verb “reveal” is always God or Christ.434 That would clearly suggest that the time of the Revelation of the “Lawless One” does not depend on his will. This affirmation, that the day of the Lord has not yet come, is, at the same time, for the encouragement of belieivers, “since the emphasis is now altogether on God’s ultimate, righteous judgment of their persecutors.”435 The Lord Jesus will destroy the “Lawless one” “by the appearance of his coming.” Both nouns: ἐπιφάνεια (“appearance”) and παρουσία (“coming”) are synonymous and used in some Pauline letters for the description of Christ’s return.436 Through the combination of these two terms, the author of the 2 Thessalonians 2 may wish to emphasise the splendour and glory of Christ’s return,437 in contrast to the παρουσία of the “Lawless one” mentioned in 2 Thess 2:9, or to point out that the term ἐπιφάνεια expresses a more hostile sense than παρουσία in the context of the destruction of the agent of Satan.438 The concept of the ἐπιφάνεια, if seen in light of the Hellenistic background where the stress is put on the sudden manifestation of a hidden deity,439 may also refer to the unexpected and abrupt Revelation of Christ and his victory over the “Lawless one.”440 The theme of the advent of the Lord is not a motif that Tyconius develops from 2 Thess 2:8, although he refers to this verse twice. It is, however, an important element of the eschatological separation of the bipartite body, and we shall briefly see how he understands the final coming of the Lord mentioned in this verse in light of other biblical passages and his comments. In one of the paragraphs of the first Rule, Tyconius, playing on the two related terms venire (“to come,” “to approach”)441 and adventus (“arrival,” “approach”),442 explains that the Second advent of Christ has not yet appeared.443 The verb venire underlines the ongoing process that takes place in the church,

434 See Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, 221; Morris, First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 230. 435 Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, 290. 436 See 1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 4:1.8; Titus 2:13; 1 Cor 15:23, 16:17; 2 Cor 7:6.7, 10:10; Phil 1:26, 2:12; 1 Thess 2:19, 3:13, 4:15, 5:23. 437 See Morris, First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 231; Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, 243. 438 See Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 304; Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 200. See also Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 424. 439 See Bauer, BDAG, 385. 440 See Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, 258; Menken, 2 Thessalonians, 114; Witherington III, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 223. 441 Cf. LR I, 916.17.19–20.21–22.1.3.4.6.7.8.9.3’. 442 Cf. LR I, 921.1.2.6.11.1’.5’.6’. 443 The incarnation of Jesus is understood as the first advent of the Lord. See LR IV, 14.13–7.

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

201

in which Christ and the Antichrist are continually born in the new members.444 The body of the Lord grows in its double parts until the advent of Christ occurs, that is, the final consummation of the bipartite reality of the church.445 In Tyconius’ eschatological teaching, understood as the pedagogical process, the separation in the body of the Lord, however, shall take place before the Second advent. This will be a beginning of the final persecution in the church and a sign that the day of the Lord is at hand.446 Meanwhile, the Antichrist is still seeking to usurp Christ’s place in the church and proclaim himself as God (2 Thess 2:4).447 The visible appearance of the inauthentic part of the church is also described by the term adventus,448 because it refers to the Second advent of the Antichrist, who within the time of the church, continues to come in a hidden form. Tyconius, perceiving the events of his time as the church’s spiritual struggle against the devil’s body, calls for watchfulness because, for him, years of persecutions and hatred are a clear indication that the eschaton is approaching.449 The enemy body and its mystery are going to be annihilated by the Lord Jesus whose coming will end the existence of time and space. Tyconius binds this apocalyptic moment, described in 2 Thess 2:8bc, with the events that take place in the persecuted body of the Lord: corpus peccati, filius exterminii in mysterium facinoris, qui veniunt secundum operationem Satanae in omni virtute signis et prodigiis falsitatis, spiritalia nequitiae in caelestibus, quos Dominus Christus quem in carne persecuntur interficiet spiritu oris sui et destruet manifestatione adventus sui.450 the body of sin (cf. 2 Thess 2:3c), the Son of Destruction (2 Thess 2:3c) in the mystery of evil (2 Thess 2:7a), come by Satan’s work with all power and with false signs and wonders (2 Thess 2:9); they are the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavens (Eph 6:12), whom the Lord Christ, whom they persecuted in the flesh, will kill with the breath of his mouth and destroy when he comes in the manifestation of his advent (2 Thess 2:8bc).

The exegete clearly identifies the Lord with his body, emphasising their ontological unity. This mechanism, once again, demonstrates Tyconius’ realistic, but spiritual understanding of the Christian vocation to love. Whatever is contrary to this attitude is exposed at the moment of the Lord’s final Revelation. The See LR I, 92–6, 11.1. See LR I, 94–7. 446 See LR I, 99–11.1–4. 447 See LR I, 10. 448 Cf. LR I, 137–9: “Istius nobis iugis adventus cavendus est, donec de medio eius discedat ecclesia.” (“The immediate advent of this one to us must be watched out for, until from the midst [2 Thess 2:7c] the church may depart” [cf. 2 Thess 2:3b]). 449 In the fifth Rule of LR, Tyconius, calculating the time of the Israelites’ slavery in Egypt as 350 years, suggests that the church will exist in its bipartite condition in this world for 350 years after the resurrection of Christ, which is approximately the time in which the exegete lives. See: LR V, 6.2–6.4. 450 LR III, 295–10. 444 445

202

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

truth of the hidden spiritual sphere is going to be exposed, both on the ecclesial and individual level. The Second advent will become a joyful moment for those who are a real spiritual remnant or heirs of the Lord, who will separate from Sodom.451 The authentic part of the church is also compared to the captives who, at the moment of the Lord’s advent, return from Babylon to Jerusalem.452 The city of Jerusalem is an historical sign (species) of the eschatological event (genus) when God leads those who remained faithful to him into the eternal Jerusalem. The evil people and the people of God walk together through the time of the church, and each group receives the same conditions for salvation, which they can either accept or reject.453 In the sixth Rule, Tyconius explicitly connects this advent with the glorious Revelation of the Lord at the end of times.454 He again utilises the image of Lot’s departure from Sodom (cf. Luke 17:29–32) as an apocalyptic prophecy that refers to the events that will take place “on that day” when Christ visibly returns to his church. The final advent of the Lord, as his continuous manifestation in the church, will be imitated by the “Man of sin” called the Antichrist, who through his visible arrival will expose his pseudo-Revelation and fight his last battle: quoadusque de medio eiusdem mysterii facinoris discedat Ecclesia quae detinet, ut in tempore suo detegatur impietas, sicut apostolus dicit: Et nunc quid detineat scitis, ut in suo tempo-

Cf. LR, III, 242–5: “Ipsae reliquiae fuerunt semen Abrahae, ne omnis Iudaea ut Sodoma esset. Iterum cum assereret numquam Deum hereditatem suam reliquisse sed sicut in adventu Domini pars Israhel salva facta est.” (“This same remnant was the seed of Abraham, lest all of Judea be like Sodom. Again, when Scripture asserted that God never abandoned his heirs, but that it has always been as in the advent of the Lord when a part of Israel was saved”). 452 Cf. LR IV, 3.19–12: “Sic Deus per Ezechielem loquitur et regressui eorum qui ab Hierusalem capti et dispersi fuerunt gentium iungit adventum, et in terra quam patres nostri possederunt exprimit mundum.” (“Thus, speaking through Ezekiel, God unites the advent to the return of those who have been taken captive from Jerusalem and have been scattered among the nations, and in the land which our fathers had occupied, he means the world [cf. Ezek 36:16–36]”). 453 Cf. LR IV, 612–16: “Item illic regressui dispersionis Israhel gentium inserit adventum, et Aegypti heremum figuram populi deserti in quo Ecclesia nunc esse manifestatur, et quod idem mali, quamuis una cum populo Dei ex gentibus revocentur in terram Israhel, tamen in terra Israhel non sint.” (“Also, there the advent of the Gentiles is grafted onto the return of the dispersion of Israel, and in the Egyptian wilderness is the type of a desert people which is now shown to be the church; and because these same people are evil, although they may be recalled with the people of God out of the nations into the land of Israel, nevertheless, they are not in the land of Israel”). 454 Cf. LR VI, 212–14: “Numquid illa hora qua Dominus revelatus fuerit adventu suo non debet quis converti ad ea quae sua sunt et uxoris Loth meminisse.” (“At that hour when the Lord is revealed by his advent one ought not return for those things which are his and remember Lot’s wife”). 451

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

203

re detegatur. Mysterium enim iam operatur facinoris, tantum ut qui detinens detinet modo, quodusque de medio fiat; et tunc revelabitur ille impius.455 until from the midst of this same mystery of evil the church which detains (2 Thess 2:7) departs (2 Thess 2:3b), in order that in his time impiety may be exposed, just as the apostles says: And now you know what detains, so that in his time he may be revealed. For the mystery of evil is already at work, until he who detains now is taken from the midst; and then that impious one will be revealed (2 Thess 2:6–8a).

At that final moment, those who do not live in the truth of Christ and compose the body of the devil will be convinced of their pseudo-righteousness and will surrender to the Antichrist’s identity forever. It will be their deliberate self-separation from the body of the Lord that we can call self-condemnation. The theme of the final persecution, before the Second advent of the Lord, is also present in Tyconius’ Expositio Apocalypseos. These two events are closely linked, and the first one prepares for the occurrence of the second. We see it especially in the passages concerning the opening of the sixth seal (Rev 6:12–7:17), the blowing of the sixth trumpet (Rev 9:12–11:14), and the pouring out of the sixth bowl (Rev 16:12–16), which describe the last persecution of the true church. In his Commentary, Tyconius notices that the meaning of the expression “the day of the Lord” depends on the context and can refer either to the whole time of the church or to the final contest that is expected in the future.456 The opening of the sixth seal announces the last earthquake (cf. Rev 6:12), that is, the final persecution that will take place throughout the whole world.457 Tyconius describes these events as a very dynamic reality that will change the present static condition of the church. Both the good and bad parts of the Lord’s body will be removed from their positions by the divine power and they will experience God who controls time and its events.458 This will be the time for the final decision to follow either the truth of Christ or the falsehood of the “Man of sin,” not only in Africa but in the whole world. The Antichrist will be the last king who will call himself God and seduce many to believe in him. Through these events that take place around him, and through their appropriate interpretation in light of Scripture, Tyconius desires to teach Christians how to prepare for this last struggle.459 This is the time for the church to abandon all spiritual idols and find refuge in Christ; otherwise, one becomes an idol himself.460 Through the means of recapitulation, the exegete shows that these events happen throughout the whole time of the church’s existence, but they

LR VII, 4.36–11. See EA V, 4357–59. 457 See EA II, 376–13, 382–3. 458 See EA II, 401–8. 459 See EA I, 417–18; II, 411–5, 4376–78. 460 See EA II, 4313–38. 455 456

204

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

will be intensified during the final persecution. The good part of the Lord’s body is hidden in Christ, and the bad part is hidden in the Antichrist: Non enim in novissimo tantum terrae motu multis de caelo labentibus confugient alli ad montes, domini misericodiam implorantes, – hoc semper factum est a passione domini usque nunc, – sed tunc magis fiet, cum instare diem domini signum discessionis ostenderit. Sic enim habet consuetudinem prophetia narrare futura quasi iam facta, sic praeterita quasi adhuc facienda.461 For it is not only in the last earthquake, when many [of the heavenly bodies] fall from heaven, that some will flee to the mountains (cf. Matt 24:16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:21), imploring the mercy of the Lord. This has always happened from the passion of the Lord up until now. But at that time, it will be greater, when the sign of the separation (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) will show that the day of the Lord is beginning. For it is the custom of prophecy to tell of future things as if they already happened, and in the same way past things as if they are still going to happen.

In the time of the Antichrist, that is, in the time when the evil brothers are openly revealed, the devil, who has been bound since the First Advent of Christ, will maximise his efforts to seduce and persecute the saints.462 When the true church ceases to fulfil the role of the Katechon, the hidden evil of the false church will surface: sicut apostolus dicit: Et nunc quid detineat scitis, ut in suo tempore denudetur; mysterium enim facinoris iam operatur; tantum qui detinens detinet modo, quoadusque de medio fiat, et tunc revelabitur ille impius.463 as the Apostle says: And you know what now restrains him, that he may be revealed in his own time (2 Thess 2:6). For the mystery of iniquity is already working; only he who restrains him is now holding him until he come from the midst. And then that wicked one will be revealed (2 Thess 2:6–8).

The separation within the bipartite body of the church will be the necessary spark to light the fury and hatred of the “Man of sin” to engage in the decisive battle. He will expose his false church, which Tyconius calls the “abomination of desolation,”464 as the substitute of the true church. Those who are not hidden in Christ during the whole time of the church will hardly be able to recognise the diabolic deception openly revealed at the last struggle. The opening of the seventh seal announces peace and eternal rest for the church, but Tyconius

EA II, 4352–58. Cf. EA VII, 181–4: “Post ea oportet eum solvi modico tempore, id est tempore antichristi, cum revelatus fuerit homo peccati et acceperit totam persequendi potestatem, qualem numquam habuit ab initio.” (“After these things it is necessary for him to be loosed for a short time [Rev 20:3], that is, in the time of Antichrist, when the Man of sin [2 Thess 2:3c] is revealed and receives all power for persecuting, power such as he never had from the beginning” [cf. Matt 24:21]). See also VII, 151–6, 231–7. 463 EA II, 4419–22. 464 See LR I, 104–8; EA V, 465–9. 461 462

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

205

notices that the author of Revelation recapitulates at 8:1 and continues to speak in a new way about the whole time of the church.465 The sound of the sixth trumpet announces, as well, the beginning of the final persecution.466 Tyconius again reminds his readers that “from Africa it will be shown what the whole church must suffer … she is taught in the time of the last persecution to despise the orders of the most cruel king and to separate from those obeying him (cf. Rev 18:4).”467 The great river Euphrates, in Rev 9:14, denotes the persecuting people who are subject to Satan and his plans and will certainly collaborate with him during the last persecution.468 They are described with the same images as in the Liber Regularum: Babylon,469 the land of North,470 Bosor and Idumea.471 This will be a decisive and open battle between the body of the Lord and the body of the devil. The four angels who are loosed (cf. Rev 9:15) to initiate the persecution, the horses whose riders are evil spirits, and the locusts, are various images that portray the same reality of the last persecution,472 which leads to the advent of the Lord: “In the description of the last contest and the death of the nations, he [John] immediately passed over, as was his custom, the seventh angel, in whom the end of the last contest and the manifestation of the advent of the Lord happen.”473 We would expect the author of Revelation to insert at this moment the sound of the seventh trumpet that announces the end of the last battle; but instead, we have to wait until Rev 11:15. The interlude (Rev 10:1–11:14) is a recapitulation of the narrative that describes the whole time of the church, which is the preparation for the final persecution and the Second advent.474 Commenting on the narrative of the two witnesses of Rev 11:3–14 who will prophesy for a period of one thousand two hundred and sixty days, Tyconius states that this is a reference to the duration of the last persecution, of the future peace, and of the whole time of the church.475 This confusing rationale is based on the logic of the fifth and sixth mystical Rules, which explain the functionSee EA II, 58. EA III, 373–4: “Hinc incipit novissima praedicatio.” 467 EA III, 3810–11.15–16: “Ex Africa enim manifestabitur omnem ecclesiam quid pati oporteat … in tempore novissimae persecutionis docetur crudelissimi regis iussa contemnere et ab obtemperantibus discedere.” 468 See EA III, 3823–26. 469 See LR IV, 18, 19.1; VII, 2–7. 470 See LR VII, 4.1–4.3. 471 See LR IV, 19.2. 472 See EA III, 39–481–4. 473 EA III, 491–4: “Descripto novissimo certamine et gentium morte, continuo praetermisit solito more septimum angelum, in quo est finis novissimi certaminis et domini manifestus adventus.” 474 EA III, 576–7: “Septima tuba finis est persecutionis et adventus Domini.” (“The seventh trumpet marks the end of the persecution and the advent of the Lord”). 475 See EA III, 64. 465 466

206

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

ality of the hermeneutical tools of synecdoche and recapitulation. This method allows the exegete to interpret the Spirit’s mystical language of Scripture, in which shorter designations of time can refer to whole periods of time, and future times can be recapitulated in the present experience of the church. In commenting on Rev 11:9, Tyconius again clarifies: For he [the Spirit] never separates the present time from the past, when spiritual wickedness (Eph 6:12) will be revealed (cf. 2 Thess 2:8a). Because [that wicked spirit] neither now desists in suggesting evil works to people, nor then will he desist in doing the same things.476

The reference to the spiritual wickedness, which, as we have seen earlier, is often clustered with 2 Thessalonians 2 in Tyconius’ exegesis, here suggests (perhaps unconsciously) the same logic of the author, as if he would like to say that ‘the impious will be revealed.’ In Rev 11:14, it is announced that the second woe has passed, and therefore, that we have reached the end of the recapitulated narrative. Both the entire time of the church and the time of the last persecution find their conclusion in the blowing of the seventh trumpet, which induces the final judgment over those who refuse to repent and finalises the separation within the church. It is the third and last woe of the seventh angel that signals the rewarding of the good and the punishment of the evil ones. Commenting on Rev 11:18, Tyconius distinguishes two advents of Christ: “He [John] spoke of the beginning and the end. In: ‘You have reigned, and the nations were angered’ he shows the first advent. ‘Your wrath is coming and the time when the dead will be judged’ is the second advent.”477 As noted above, we find the same exegetical and rhetorical mechanism in the narrative on the sixth angel who pours out his bowl upon the great river Euphrates (Rev 16:12). Tyconius identifies the four following verses as another recapitulation that describes the whole time of the church and its close connection with the future.478 The pouring out of the seventh bowl signifies the end of the persecution and the eternal peace of the church. These few important examples of Tyconius’ teaching on the final persecution and the Second advent of the Lord, preceded by the advent of the “Man of sin,” show us the exegete’s way of understanding of 2 Thess 2:8bc. The “Man of sin” 476 EA III, 738–11: “Numquam enim separat praesens tempus a novissimo, quo spiritalis nequitia revelabitur, quia nec nunc desinit mala opera hominibus suggerendo, nec tunc desinet eadem exercendo.” 477 EA III, 8413–16: “Initium dixit et finem: regnasti et gentes iratae sunt primum adventum ostendit, venit autem ira tua et tempus quo de mortuis iudicetur secundus adventus est.” 478 Cf. EA V, 434–6: “Recapitulatio est enim totius temporis in quo hypocritae faciunt signa, caelestia gerendo et quasi benedictionem ostendendo.” (“For it is a recapitulation of the whole time in which hypocrites perform signs, by doing heavenly things and [acting] as if they are bestowing a blessing”); 4357–59: “diem domini in commune dixit totum tempus et novissimum certamen, quod futurum speratur.” (“he commonly spoke of ‘the day of the Lord’ as the whole time and the last contest, which is expected in the future”).

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

207

must come first, openly reveal his mystery, and use the time that has been given to him in God’s wisdom to test the faith of the believers before the Lord comes to judge and reward the bad and good parts of the church respectively. 3.4 In sua incredulitate morientur Verses 11–12 open the fourth part of the corrections given to the Thessalonian community, shifting the time perspective from future events back to the present reality, from the focus on the Lawless One to those whom he deceives and their ultimate annihilation: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πέμπει αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς ἐνέργειαν πλάνης εἰς τὸ πιστεῦσαι αὐτοὺς τῷ ψεύδει, ἵνα κριθῶσιν πάντες οἱ μὴ πιστεύσαντες τῇ ἀληθείᾳ ἀλλὰ εὐδοκήσαντες τῇ ἀδικίᾳ. And therefore, God sends them a powerful delusion leading them to believe the falsehood, so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness may be condemned.

The oppressed readers of the letter, persecuted and misled by the members of their own community, are comforted by the author and encouraged to persevere, keeping in view the vindication promised by God.479 The present-tense verb πέμπει (“he sends”) refers to the present reality of the community rather than to the future events that will occur when the apostasy comes and the “Man of Lawlessness” is revealed.480 The unbelievers are prompted to believe the delusion, which may refer to a rejection of the Gospel of truth preached to the citizens of Thessalonica.481 Edmond Hiebert notes that “the delusion which Satan had deliberately fostered is now divinely confirmed in them since they voluntarily accepted it and desired it.”482 Then he adds: It should be noted that God does not send upon them ‘error’ as such but rather an inward working of the inevitable consequences of error. They will fall under the influence of a power working within them which leads them farther and farther away from the truth.483

The gravity of the context clearly indicates that the attitude of some members of the community will be judged and that they will be condemned. It has to be noted that the clause καὶ διὰ (“and therefore”) indicates that it is not God who acts as a cause of their tragic end, but rather it is the unbelievers’ previous rejection of the truth of the Gospel. God is only a just executor of the human will and he performs a role that is already noticeable in the OT (cf. 2 Sam 24:1; 479 See Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, 264; Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, 295. 480 See Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 217; Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 204; Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 427. 481 See Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 309; Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 174; Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, 295. 482 D. Edmond Hiebert, The Thessalonian Epistles. A Call to Readiness (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), 319. 483 Ibid., 319.

208

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

1 Kgs 22:23; Ezek 14:9) and NT (cf. Rom 1:24.26.28, 11:8; 2 Tim 4:4), in which he gives sinners over to their own sin or employs evil spirits to inspire false prophets.484 Lars Hartman notes that “their unbelief is embraced in God’s work” and “even the deception is placed in the hands of the Almighty.”485 In none of Tyconius’ works do we find a quotation from 2 Thess 2:11–12, and we should wonder why since he consistently, in various ways, discusses the concepts of truth and falsehood, which in these verses clearly present two groups opposed to each other. It would not be wrong to say that the main theme of both of his works is the struggle between truth and falsehood in the church. Perhaps other elements of vv. 11–12 perplexed Tyconius and he decided to omit them. One of these could be God’s role as he appears to help unbelievers become rooted in falsehood. But we have seen that Tyconius is very aware of the fact that God allows evil to mix with good and that the “mystery of evil” also somehow allows for the just self-condemnation of the false brothers. The exegete’s concentration on the present situation of the church may have made him ignore these verses, because his goal is mainly to demonstrate the status of the Lord’s body, which contains both members who believe the truth and also those who believe the falsehood. We notice that in the Liber Regularum a direct reference to the term veritatis (“truth”) is understood as the fruit of a proper reading of Scripture with the assistance of the Spirit of God. Already in the Prologue to the Liber Regularum, Tyconius clearly states that the “treasures of truth” can be detected only by those who follow the logic of the mystical Rules, that is, those who learn to understand the language of the Holy Spirit who speaks through the biblical texts.486 This is the guarantee for not falling into the trap of believing the falsehood, which is proposed by the evil spirits. The truth hidden in Scripture, in Tyconius’ reasoning, has a power to transform the believer’s perception of the church in order to focus upon the loving unity between Christ and his body.487 Because the Spirit of God has established faith as the measure of truth, the reader has the capacity, to a certain degree, to discover the divine mysteries.488 Those members of the Lord’s body who find and accept the truth of God are protected from delusion and possess the ability to clearly discern between good and evil. They know how to respond to the biblical prophecy that calls them

Cf. Weima, 1–2 Thessalonians, 545. Lars Hartman, “The Eschatology of 2 Thessalonians as Included in a Communication,” in Collins, The Thessalonian Correspondence, 482. 486 Cf. LR Prol.3.1’–2’: “Sunt enim quaedam regulae mysticae, quae universae legis recessus obtinent et veritatis thesauros aliquibus invisibiles faciunt.” (“For there are certain mystical Rules which hold the secrets of the whole law and make visible the treasures of truth which to some are invisible”). 487 See LR I, 11–6. 488 See LR IV, 16–9. 484 485

3. The Separation within the Lord’s Body

209

to watchfulness and ensures them of the final victory over the evil one.489 The light of truth has a power within the time of the church to illumine those who remain in the darkness of the devil’s body, both inside and outside the Lord’s body.490 Their stubbornness, however, in conceiving falsehood as truth and corrupted knowledge as wisdom, makes them blind and foolish.491 The echo of 2 Thess 2:12 in the Expositio Apocalypseos suggests that Tyconius’ reading of this verse could refer to the pagan world, and therefore he does not use it directly, since his goal is to describe the inner dynamism of the church. In reference to the final persecution, the exegete, commenting on Rev 9:19–21, confirms that those who pretend to be Christians “will fight against the church”492 and will receive their just punishment. A similar tragic fate will happen to the pagans who, being outside the church, remain faithful to their idols and sins that are mentioned in vv. 20–21, and who, being deaf to divine inspirations, become more radical in their errors. They are allowed by God to die in their sins: Et non paenituerunt ex homicidiis suis neque ex veneficiis suis neque ex fornicatione sua neque ex furtis suis? Nec quidem in illa persecutione cogentur gentiles supra dictis consentire, sed in sua incredulitate morientur.493 And they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries nor of their fornication nor of their thefts (Rev 9:21). Because in that persecution the [heathen] nations will not be forced to consent to those things mentioned above (cf. Rev 9:19–20), but they will die in their unbelief (cf. 2 Thess 2:12; John 8:21).

We notice a similar theme in Rev 16 that speaks about seven angels who receive the order to pour out bowls with the wrath of God on those who do not repent and are content to remain in their sins. Several comments by Tyconius seem to refer thematically to 2 Thess 2:11–12 or Rom 1:24.26.28. First of all, Tyconius emphasises that “all these plagues are spiritual.”494 The first plague is “a bad and grievous sore … upon the people having the mark of the beast and who worship his image” (Rev 16:2). Tyconius explains it as their spiritual wound in which “they are given over to their own desires and commit wilful and mortal sins.”495 The second and the third angel pour out their bowls upon the sea, the rivers, the springs of waters, the sun, the throne of the beast, the Euphrates River, and

See LR VI, 2. See LR VII, 10.221.1–2. 491 See LR VII, 17.118–26. 492 EA III, 483–4: “sed sub Christianitatis nomine diabolo inhaerentes contra ecclesiam dimicare.” 493 EA III, 4811–15. 494 EA V, 304: “Omnes istae plagae spiritales sunt.” 495 EA V, 309–11: “id est vulnus saeuum et putredo in eo, sed spiritaliter, eo quod voluntatibus suis traditus sit et faciat voluntaria et mortalia peccata.” 489 490

210

Chapter III: Tyconius’ Construction of the Literary World

the air. Tyconius interprets all these places as “the earth, that is, people,”496 who are ungodly. For the African exegete, the first and most horrible punishment is that God allows them to follow their unrighteousness and to find pleasure in their sins: “it is an incurable plague and great wrath to receive the power of sinning, especially against the saints, and not to be corrected; it is a still greater wrath of God to be given over to unrighteousness by encouragement to error.”497 In Rev 16:11 we read that “they did not repent,” and Tyconius adds that they were “obviously hardened in their pleasure.”498 These few probable thematic allusions to 2 Thess 2:11–12 would suggest that the exegete is aware of these verses, but he certainly does not give much attention to them. It is also worth noting that in none of his works does Tyconius use 2 Thess 2:1–2 or 13–17, an observation which confirms that he considers 2 Thess 2:3– 12 as a thematic unit. This third section of this chapter helps us to understand Tyconius’ distinctive apocalyptic vision that differs from the mainstream Donatist perspective. He definitely recognises the true church as an apocalyptic remnant that is persecuted by the false church, which is under the control of the “Man of sin.” The “separation” of these two distinctive realities, however, is shifted into the future and includes not only North Africa but the whole world. The main motif of discessio shows the different aspects of this separation, which involve both divine and human decisions. The time of the bipartite church marked by the minor motif of in medio, and the eschatological time expressed in the minor motif of de medio, contribute to the pedagogical eschatology of Tyconius, which is composed of several stages: the biblical prophecies, their fulfilment exemplified by the presence of the bipartite church, the separation, the Revelation of the “Man of sin,” the final persecution, the advent of the Lord, and the final judgment.

Summary This long chapter, which we have called the maxi-part, is the heart of the whole study. The comprehensive view of Tyconius’ reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12 from its literary perspective is understood in light of the exegete’s historical context, analysed in the previous chapter. Gathering Tyconius’ scattered motifs into groups and establishing their thematic unity helps us to perceive which of them are more or less important for his theology. We have noticed three major EA V, 311: “terra est, id est homines.” EA V, 3112–15: “Plaga est enim insanabilis et ira magna accipere potestatem peccandi, maxime in sanctos, nec corripi; adhuc maior ira dei et errorum fomenta subministrari iniustitiae.” 498 EA V, 374: “Et paenitentiam non egerunt, utique obdurati laetitia.” 496 497

Summary

211

world-constructing motifs: homo peccati, mysterium facinoris, and discessio, on which Tyconius constructs his concept of the bipartite nature of the church and of the human being. The minor motifs help us to deepen these arguments and support the overall integrity of Tyconius’ thought. The literary analysis confirms that, though Tyconius considers 2 Thessalonians 2 in general as the source of his hermeneutical mechanism for building the concept of the bipartite church, he focuses mainly on vv. 3 and 7 from which he draws three major and three minor motifs. They become for him the world-constructing verses on which he forms a spiritual interpretation of the rest of Scripture. This system of interpretation of the obscure and prophetic text of Scripture, based on these three categories: homo peccati, mysterium facinoris, and discessio, is Tyconius’ original conception. He leads his readers into the understanding that Revelation and other passages of both Old and New Testaments should be interpreted in light of 2 Thess 2:3.7. In this way, he develops his perception of ecclesiology, anthropology and eschatology in order to communicate with his readers, warning them not to ignore the spiritual dimension of their actions and decisions and to see the connection between the present and future time of the church. The exegete’s intelligent and attentive interpretation of 2 Thess 2:3–12 allows him to elicit new meanings and perspectives from the text. The themes and concepts that Tyconius draws out from these main motifs open for him the limitless spiritual perspectives that pertain to the church and each human being. The reception of the biblical text in this new context shows Tyconius’ capacity for listening to what the text says to him, and responding to it by building up a systematic and integral theological and spiritual teaching. The exegete has been able to demonstrate the potentiality of the language of 2 Thess 2:3–12 in the context of the fourth century North Africa Christianity crisis.

Chapter IV

Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12 The analysis of Tyconius’ transformative and performative processes with regard to 2 Thessalonians 2:3–12 presented in the previous chapters, leads us to the last element of his reception, namely, the examination of the process of productive assimilation from which theological insights are born. Without this last step, the study of the reception of the biblical text would remain incomplete and defective. Tyconius’ reading of Scripture involves not only historical and literary events but, above all, the event of existence, in which his understanding of the history and interpretation of the Word of God pushes him to the concrete response of Christian faith. As Bright observes, Tyconius’ theory of scriptural interpretation presented in the Liber Regularum is “integrally related to his theology of the Church.”1 Hendrik van Bakel named Tyconius Augustinus ante Augustinum (Augustine before Augustine).2 It is true that Tyconius greatly influenced Augustine, but obviously, he cannot be placed on the same level with the bishop of Hippo, based on the number of philosophical and theological works and his impact on the church’s teaching. The statement of van Bakel, however, can be justified if we underline the complementarity between these two important figures. Both of them loved the church and saw her as the body of Christ, but they did so in two different ways. Tyconius was outside the visible church, but he did everything possible to enforce the authenticity of the Christian community. Augustine was inside the visible church, and through his orthodoxy he worked for the good of the church as well. What Tyconius was not able to achieve, Augustine did and vice versa. It would be better, therefore, to go beyond existing differences (including at the teaching level) between these two Africans and appreciate the complementarity of their two different ways of expressing their love for the body of Christ. Tyconius’ world-constructing verses (2 Thess 2:3.7), presented in the major motifs, and all other hermeneutical elements used by him in the course of the composition of his works, allow us to formulate Tyconius’ theological trilogy

Bright, The Book of Rules, 32. See Hendrik A. van Bakel, “Tyconius, Augustinus ante Augustinum,” NTT 19 (1930): 36–57. 1

2

214

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

composed of ecclesiology, anthropology and eschatology.3 The insights that Tyconius got from his reading of 2 Thess 2:3–12 become the source of our theological insights today. Tyconius’ reception of the passage in his historical context, and expressed in his literary constructions, constitute the material for our theological reception of his insights. In other words, the situation of Thessalonians resonates in the situation of the fourth century North Africa church and reaches the situation of our church today. Hence, the biblical reception appears to be a deposit that does not exhaust itself, because it considers the objectivity of the author and the subjectivity of the interpreter. The reception of Tyconius’ main motifs drawn from 2 Thess 2:3.7 allows us to place the human being in the centre of our theological argumentation. In fact, it is human beings who constitute the church, and it is none other than human beings who walk toward the eschaton. Certainly, the African theologian is clearly more interested in understanding the believing subject and his relation to God than in the development of theological doctrines or the institutional debates between two opposing Christian parties. This means that Tyconius begins with theological systematics, which, in this case, is an orderly and fundamental set of essential questions that derive from his reading of 2 Thessalonians 2: who is the Man of sin and what is his role in the church? What is the correct attitude of the believer in light of the mystery of evil reigning in the midst of the Christian community? How will the separation of the bipartite condition of the church take place? His teaching stems from answers to these and similar questions that are raised in his heart as the result of a painful confrontation with his concrete historical context. Waldemar Linke correctly notices that Tyconius’ “difficult, lonely path is an interesting paradigm of a believer’s attitude at a time when the world is shaken by fundamentalism and its foundations are washed away by relativism.”4 Tyconius was neither a fundamentalist, like the Donatists in their theological thinking, nor a relativist, like, perhaps, Caecilianists who collaborated with the Roman Empire and compromised their faith. As a response to these two opposing attitudes, Tyconius proposed a mystical theology – an authentic Christian life that is coherent with the demands of the Spirit and unites and integrates whatever is divided. The genuineness of his Christian life prevented him from falling into any extremism. The African Tobias Nicklas and Stefan Scheingraber notice that 2 Thessalonians is usually understood as a text that focuses on eschatology. The community’s current suffering for the kingdom of God is not just a historical problem, but has to do with the church’s inner nature, as such it is a clear indication of its future glory. See Tobias Nicklas and Stefan Scheingraber, “Zwischen Erwählung und Herrlichkeit: Die Ekklesia im 2. Thessalonicherbrief,” SScr 14 (2016): 150–62. 4 Waldemar Linke, “Tykoniusz i jego komentarz do Apokalipsy,” in Pierwsze łacińskie komentarze do Apokalipsy: Hipolit, Wiktoryn, Hieronim, Tykoniusz, eds. Dominika Budzanowska and Waldemar Linke (Warszawa: Wydaw. Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego, 2011), 187. 3

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

215

theologian realised that members of the church, and therefore the church itself, lost the true meaning of the Christian life as required by Christ and that is why he was filled with pastoral zeal and dedicated his life to the good of the church. An attentive reading of Tyconius, often between the lines, greatly helps us to expand our understanding of his insights and sometimes, the real meaning behind what he is trying to say. The study of Tyconius’ works, especially with reference to 2 Thess 2:3–12, strongly suggests that his wish is to invite every Christian, understood as a concrete living person that is open to ultimate realities: to live in charity where goodness among brothers and sisters is born; to live in faith through which one reaches the truth; and to live in hope which orients the believer towards eschatological beauty. This is what we call Tyconius’ theology of mediation, because when one chooses and maintains these theological virtues then one is restored in him/herself, with others, and with God. The purest and most irresistible desire of human beings is internal and external unity and harmony. In the course of this chapter, we shall show that Tyconius’ theology focuses not only on the bipartite nature of the church, but also on the bipartite nature of the human being, and the bipartite nature of temporality. It is, however, not his principal objective. Tyconius’ aim is not just to expose the tragic consequences of divisiveness, but rather to make other Christians aware of this fact and show its functionality in view of the future reality of the church. For this reason, at the centre of this chapter is the person – the member of the church who can become aware of the complexity of the situation. In other words, Tyconius’ logic makes us think that bipartition is a necessary condition (conditio sine qua non) for the final unity of the church, the human being, and temporality. Division is not a good or desirable thing, but a real evil on which Tyconius reflects, attempting to comprehend its meaning and functionality. Only in this way can we understand why Tyconius speaks of the bipartite reality, which for him, is not definitive but serves as a means of awakening a believer’s decision to get out of the false reality. For Tyconius then, a human is a being who is equipped with the faculties to enter into him/herself and form his or her interiority in an authentic way. This striving for harmony is due to the fact that humans are created from the divine unity, in order to live in unity with others, and be oriented towards the ultimate unity. We shall not multiply the already existing theories about the origins of evil, but rather enquire into the purpose and function of this bipartite reality. Tyconius seems to go beyond the fact of bipartition, awakening in the church the expectation for something superior. To make this transition from the phenomenon to the goal to be achieved, the African theologian discovers and explains a coherent mysticism of the Holy Spirit, who is the guarantor of the final unity and harmony, and the principle of human conversion here and now. We will, therefore, not speak about the theology of bipartition, as many commentators have done, but rather about the theology of unity and harmony, so much desired by Tyconius,

216

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

in which the concept of bipartition serves as the necessary means. A human being’s positive response to God’s objective reproduces in him/her and around him/her the lost order and union visible in a life integrated with goodness, truth and beauty – the values that allow the believer to have a foretaste of eternal life. In other words, the theology of unity expresses a relationship between intrapersonal and interpersonal realities. Theology rightly considers charity, faith and hope as intrapersonal gifts, but lived and celebrated in an interpersonal way. This response of human beings is a part of the mystery of God who is already acting in him or her, but in view of a future spiritual accomplishment. As we have mentioned in the introduction, Tyconius is a forgotten and a solitary exegete and theologian who is known only to a few scholars, and mainly from the perspective of Augustine or his connection with Donatism. We discover, however, that Tyconius’ thought is classic, that is, it is atemporal and has something to say to any epoch of the church and to any Christian. His thought is like an ‘iceberg’ – the greater part is invisible to the eyes. In order to listen to his voice and appreciate the value of his thought, we put him into a dialogue with some contemporary philosophers and theologians, both Catholic and Protestant, the majority of which have probably never studied him. The method proposed by the Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Aeterni Patris under the statement vetera novis augere et perficere5 (to enlarge and perfect the old by means of the new) is a proper way for constructing theology today. This method, on the one hand, respects traditio and, on the other hand, is open to innovatio. In our case, the vetera is the thought of Tyconius and the bipartite tradition he initiated by his reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12; the nova is the comparable problems discussed by contemporary writers. Perhaps, Tyconius was not always aware of the theological productiveness that arises from his study of the motifs of 2 Thess 2:3–12. We can, therefore, speak about the double theological reception, or a chain of receptions, because what he has produced can be observed from various angles, and it opens the door for new theological insights. A theological dialogue in this chapter, that is not only limited to Catholic authors, is also an expression of ecumenism. In this way, we extend our reception of Tyconius’ reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12 to our own times, and show the relevance of the problems he raises.

1. Bipartition of the Church’s Reality One of the tasks of philosophical hermeneutics was to understand the whole from the parts and the parts from the whole, that is, to make evident an inseparable interdependence between the whole and the parts. Tyconius applies similar logic in his biblical hermeneutics by means of synecdoche. We shall Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, AAS 12 (1879), 111. Eng. trans. Claudia Carlen, The Papal Encyclicals 1878–1903 (Raleigh: McGrath, 1981), 24. 5

1. Bipartition of the Church’s Reality

217

attempt to do the same by assuming the logical principles that bind time and space, reality and idea, immanence and transcendence, etc. We cannot understand any of these categories without their interdependence on each other. In this sense, it is illogical to think of unity without division, because it is precisely conflict that brings out the desire for unity. From Tyconius’ thought, we can analogically deduce that we cannot talk about unity without bipartition. Only that which is divided can be united. Therefore, we understand bipartition as the point of departure and a logical condition for developing the theology of unity and harmony. This means that Tyconius’ theology, as far as we can understand, implies a dynamic understanding of reality: from bipartition to unity. Therefore, the concept of bipartition, as important as it is, is always subordinated to the concept of unity. In this perspective, the question of the mystery of good and evil in the church, which as we have seen in previous chapters, is the fundamental issue for Tyconius that enkindles a pastoral urgency. For him, evil is real and is allowed by God to be active in the church, challenging her holiness. The problem of the existence of evil in the church, as presented by Tyconius, somehow provokes us to enquire if such a condition of the church is a curse for believers’ growth and their getting closer to Christ, or rather a chance for achieving a deeper and more authentic relationship with God. Can evil become helpful in searching for God, or does it appear as an intransigent obstacle? We shall attempt to become more aware of the function of this paradoxical bipartite reality of the church and God’s possible reason for allowing the confrontation of these two opposed realities in the one body. We will see that God obviously never desired this condition for the church, because God, as the foreseeing Father “wants all men to be saved and effectively adopts the necessary means for this.”6 Therefore, catholic theology on divine providence manifests a lively awareness of the universalism of the salvific offer. 1.1 Church as a Dynamic and Processual Reality As we have noted in the third chapter, Tyconius sees the concept of the church shining out of every page of Scripture. In doing this, he has developed his specific ecclesiology, which presents the church not as static, but rather as a dynamic reality moving toward the Eternal Good. At present in the church, holiness mingles with ungodliness, not by losing their properties, but by confronting their distinctive features. All the members of the church, in Tyconius’ view, find themselves at the same starting point from which they can orient themselves in various directions. The church is composed not of equal and like-minded people, who can either open themselves to dialogue with each other 6 “Dio vuole che tutti gli uomini siano salvati e ne adotta effettivamente i mezzi.” Emmanuel Durand, Vangelo e Provvidenza. Una teologia dell’azione die Dio, trans. Gloria Romagnoli (Brescia: Queriniana, 2018), 5 (orig. pub. Évangile et Providence. Une théologie de l’action de Dieu [Paris: Cerf, 2014]).

218

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

or choose an immature attitude of triumphalism and domination over the other. For Tyconius, the church is a mediator through which God offers to believers the possibility of maturing in holiness, that is, in the harmonious and integrated life with oneself and other people. He refuses the idea of ‘the church of the pure’ that would cast sinners out of its bosom into outer darkness, and sees the mixing of good and evil in the one body as a chance for the wicked to be inspired by the example of the good.7 The latter remain blameless and their merit is greater for having been able to preserve themselves from the abomination, that is, the spiritual wickedness done in their midst (cf. 2 Thess 2:7; Eph 6:12).8 The coexistence of union and disunion in the church is a mystery in which two processes take place: either a conversion to a life of grace or a decline manifested in a sinful life and rooted in evil. In Tyconius’ understanding, the church must become aware of the presence of evil in her midst, because only in this way can she make a mature discernment and decide to walk towards the Supreme Good. Unlike the Donatists, who considered their church perfect, therefore, static and in no need of discernment, Tyconius sees the church as a living organism, because it is made up of concrete living beings, and therefore, a dynamic entity in need of perfection. For him, the moving power behind the church is the Holy Spirit, through whom the Scriptures calls the entire body into a continual transformation. It is true that division among Christians, often born from power and pride, is a form of sin and disorder and cannot come from God, but it is also true that God, in his pedagogical wisdom, allows it in order to achieve unity through an inner transformation based on charity. Such an image of the dynamic church of possibilities generates a question about Christ’s mode of being in the church. Is he in us, above us, between or in front of us? Tyconius emphasises that “the true Christ, the hidden God (deus occultus), has never departed from the midst of the church,”9 even if she, at present, experiences his silence. God’s Revelation is befitting the logic of paradox, so that it manifests itself in the invisible and communicates itself in silence, becoming strong in weakness or great in smallness. How, therefore, is divine presence and holiness dealing with evil, which is so explicitly manifested and alive? Is Christ’s presence passive? Is he himself indifferently waiting for the final or critical moment of history in order to be revealed, while simply letting events take their own improvised course? From Tyconius’ thought we can deduce that God’s concealment or silence is part of his Revelation. This means that God reveals himself not only through his Word or at the end of time, but also by other means. In this case, evil is subject to God’s service and the church must learn to become aware of the divine logic that goes beyond See EA I, 11135–137. See EA I, 3016–17; 362–6. 9 EA I, 4117–18. Deus absconditus, though hidden, influences positively the world, in contrast to deus otiosus (idle god) the god of the deism who created the world, but is lazy and no longer involved in its life. 7 8

1. Bipartition of the Church’s Reality

219

the plans of the evil one. Tyconius does not underestimate Christ’s Revelation, which is perfect and definitive, but he also awakens the awareness of Christians to recognise different degrees of Revelation, that is, the ways in which God acts as God.10 The church must learn to know and understand God as God, that is to say, to recognise and, above all, to respect God’s right to be God, to respect the absolute freedom of the Absolute. God has the right to be God and to act as God11 and we are obliged to respect this right. The church must also become aware of the hidden but active manifestation of evil in its midst.12 Let us remember the “Man of sin” (2 Thess 2:3c), composed of a multitude of the evil brothers and sisters, who makes himself visible in the present through their wicked actions, as well as Christ, who makes himself visible in the good ones who practice charity. In order to deepen the point on the church’s awareness with regard to the presence of the adversary in her midst, let us briefly turn to one of Latin America’s most fertile and original thinkers, Alberto Ferré. In his recent book El Papa y el Filósofo, the author advances an idea of becoming acutely aware of the proper enemy. According to him, the church, in particular, must constantly recognise and come to know her own enemy that lives next to her, in order to perform her mission correctly and dynamically, but also in order to be in ongoing conversion or transformation. A lack of awareness by the church about her own situation makes her incapable of relating to the outside world, especially in the field of evangelisation. A church that is unaware does not know how to generate fundamental strategies and, therefore, how to act. Neither history nor the church can be understood without the presence of evil and its much superior opposition, which is love. Ferré claims that the existence of an adversary against the church is, therefore, inevitable, because it opens the church to an 10 Chapter two of the Dogmatic Constitution of the First Vatican Council Dei Filius teaches that “God the beginning and end of all things, may be certainly known by the natural light of human reason, by means of created things; ‘for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made’ (Rom 1:20), but that it pleased His wisdom and bounty to reveal Himself, and the eternal decrees of His will, to mankind by another and a supernatural way: as the Apostle says, ‘God, having spoken on diverse occasions, and in many ways, in times past, to the fathers by the prophets; last of all, in these days, has spoken to us by His Son’ (Heb 1–2)”. Latin text in Dezinger 1786: “Deum, rerum omnium principium et finem, naturali humanae rationis lumine e rebus creatis certo cognosci posse; invisibilia enim ipsius, a creatura mundi, per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta, conspiciuntur (Rom 1:20): attamen placuisse eius sapientiae et bonitati, alia, eaque  supernaturali via se ipsum ac aeterna voluntatis suae decreta humanp generi revelare, dicente Apostolo: Multifariam, multisque modis olim Deus loquens patribus in Prophetis: novissime, diebus istis locutus est nobis in Filio (Heb 1–2).”  11 See, for example, Brian E. Daley, God Visible: Patristic Christology Reconsidered (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018); Jacob Jervell, Imago Dei: Gen. 1.26f im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960). 12 See EA I, 4114–16.

220

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

authentically Christian friend – enemy dialectic, which confirms the originality of Christ who did not come to love only those who were his friends, but particularly those who were his enemies. The aim of such a dialectic is not to annihilate the enemy, but to recover him as a friend. The church has to rediscover her own originality and logic, which is radically different from the reasoning of the world.13 Ferré speaks about an enemy that exists outside the church as an independent body – the enemy of the church; Tyconius, in turn, underlines the enemy in the church which is one of her constitutive parts. In other words, it is not subject – object (church – enemy), but subject – subject (church – church) dialectic, that is, not only the awareness of the enemy, but self-awareness. The good part of Christ’s body cannot remain isolated and closed in upon itself, but becoming aware of the sneaky workings of the “Man of sin” (2 Thess 2:3c) and the misterium facinoris (2 Thess 2:7a), it has to understand the presence of evil in her midst (2 Thess 2:7c; cf. 2:4b) as a mission that must be faced with the principle of love. This is the only possible way for a dynamic and authentic development of the church towards the final separation (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) of the opposing realities of the one body. 1.2 Church as the Spiritual and Universal Reality The analysis of Tyconius’ texts, in which he plays on the image of the bipartite body, allows us to think that apart from the mystery, the church is also a sacrament. From the texts of the African theologian we can deduce that the sacramental reality is a constituent between the sacred and the ‘unsacred’ in the church, where the sacred belongs to Christ who is the Head and to the good members of the church, who constitute his body. Because of this bond with its Head, which is the sacrament par excellence, not only is the church a sacrament, but it also does and administers the sacraments. Christ as the absolute and universal Mediator of the Father is the sacrament of the Father and the mission of the church is a mediation, but subordinated to the absolute mediation of Christ, through the mediation of the sacraments. Therefore, the sacramental mediation of the church derives from the radical mediation of the Son of God. We must note that the bipartite distinction between the Mediator and mediation, between the Sacrament of the Father and the sacramentality of the church, reaches unity by means of Christ the Head of the body. Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, was right to stress the theological importance of the name Emmanuel (God-with-us). In fact, Christ’s mediation, as the German theologian says, would indeed basically cancel itself out and become a separation instead of a mediation if he were someone other than God, if he were an intermediate being. He would then be guiding

See Alberto Methol Ferré and Alver Metalli, El Papa y el Filósofo (Buenos Aires: Editorial Biblios, 2013), 53–55. 13

1. Bipartition of the Church’s Reality

221

us, not toward God, but away from him … Only if he is really a man like us can he be our mediator, and only if he is really God, like God, does the mediation reach its goal.14

And the same applies to the sacramentality of the church: only in unity with Christ – her leader – can she be an effective mediator; without unity with Christ, her mediation distances the believers from Christ rather than bringing them closer to him. The evil members of the church are, instead, the profane reality of which the devil is the head. Their administration and participation in the sacraments are, in fact, desecration and profanation. This constant tension between sacred and unsacred realities is a spiritual matter and has to be interpreted in spiritual terms. That is why Tyconius, as Ratzinger notes, focuses more on the invisible character of the church’s unity through its bipartite nature throughout the world, rather than on the visible character of the church, in contrast to Augustine, who distinguishes between a visible church and an invisible church of the saints.15 One of the forms of expression of this double sacramental reality of the church is seen in Tyconius’ use of the terms spiritaliter (spiritually) and spiritalis (spiritual) in Rules four and five. Bright observes that spiritaliter is applied in the negative contexts and describes the prophetic admonitions and denunciations of the left side of the church, emphasising the presence of evil in the midst of the church,16 while the adjective spiritalis refers to the church in a positive sense.17 For Tyconius, the church is the “spiritual world” (mundum spiritalem),18 in which the spiritual dynamism takes place, both evil and good. The presence and activity of the Holy Spirit is, however, much superior to the presence and activity of evil spirits. The Spirit of God vivifies and unites all to Christ. The spiritual warfare of the church is also a time of spiritual renewal. From this spiritual reality we can bring out another essential quality of Tyconius’ understanding of the church, namely her catholicity. As we have said before, for him, the situation of the African church is a paradigm for the whole church all over the world. It is in accordance with his principle of understanding the whole from the part, the complexity from the fragment, the universal from the concrete. In fact, as Hans Urs von Balthasar emphasises, Christ is the norm of the universale concretum: one for the salvation of all.19 Tyconius 14 Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, trans. J.R. Foster and Michael J. Miller (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 163. 166 (orig. Einführung in das Christentum [München: Kösel, 1968]). 15 See Ratzinger, “Beobachtungen zum Kirchenbegriff,” 175; Bright, The Book of Rules, 153. 16 See LR IV, 129–10, 15.411, 15.57–8, 1716–17, 1817, 19.114; V, 8.114, 8.214–15. 17 See LR IV, 1811; V, 6.715; Bright, The Book of Rules, 148–50. 18 LR V, 6.715. Cf. EA I, 72: “spiritalis ecclesia.” 19 See Hans U. von Balthasar, Il tutto nel frammento. Aspetti di teologia della storia, trans. Laura and Pierangelo Sequeri (Milano: Jaca Book, 1972) (orig. pub. Das Ganze im Fragment. Aspekte der Geschichtstheologie [Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1963]).

222

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

seems to have his own concept of catholicity, understood as unity and totality, after which he is striving and to which he invites the entire Christian community. He underlines both its positive aspect – the church is spread throughout the nations, but also its negative aspect – the mystery of the coexistence of good and evil (cf. 2 Thess 2:7a) is not only in Africa, but throughout the whole body of the church.20 He refuses the Donatist concept of the church as the visible faithful remnant awaiting the return of the Lord and any other sectarian view of the church. Authentic catholicity, for him, is a horizon whose fullness has to be reached. As the deepest human desire is to live in unity and integrity, so also the church desires harmony in its totality. For Tyconius, catholicity becomes a mission of the church, an opportunity to become what she is designed to be. During this process of transformation, the church encounters evil, confusion, and tension, and learns to respond to these challenges by seeing them not as a curse, but as an opportunity for conversion. In this sense, the catholicity has a soteriological connotation, because it requires a life of grace and a rejection of sin. Soteriology, especially biblical soteriology, presents an in-depth examination of the history of salvation, a history that is combined with the universal history of humanity. Tyconius’ understanding of catholicity goes beyond the visible reality, such as territory, institution, or the exercise of authority. He underlines the importance of the spiritual dimension of the catholicity of the church. Tyconius himself, at a certain time in his life was neither a Donatist nor a Caecilianist, but he remained an independent Christian. He obviously felt the absence of an authentic Christian community, but he decided to live an authentic Christian life by seeing himself as a member of the spiritual church. The independence chosen by Tyconius has nothing to do with spiritual arbitrariness. In other words, his physical independence from the visible community makes him more dependent on the Spirit. Ratzinger notes that such a belonging to the church, described by the term fides, not communion, has no analogy in the history of the early Christianity.21 We must remember that the authenticity of the church, according to Tyconius, does not mean perfection in the sense of purity, but a church that sets itself on the path of conversion by being receptive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The universality of the biblical message is addressed to all nations and, above all, to the divided Christians. Tyconius’ logic is spiritual and he invites the entire body of Christ to embrace this spiritual process of personal, and consequently communal, transformation with the perspective of achieving salvation. Catholicity is a desire for unity. It is a divine program to establish 20 See LR I, 4.19–16; VII, 4.316–17; EA II, 4422–24; VII, 922–29. In Contra epistulam Parmeniani libri tres 1.1.1 (CSEL 51.19–20) Augustine writes that Tyconius understood the church as diffusa Ecclesia (church spread throughout the world), and often himself underlines in his letters and sermons the unity and universality of the church (ecclesia per totum orbem terrarum est or simply ecclesia toto orbe diffusa). 21 See Ratzinger, “Beobachtungen zum Kirchenbegriff,” 175–76.

2. Charity as the Response to Hatred

223

a catholic community that from the beginning was understood as a project of unity. Tyconius is not against the community but he puts himself in the process of transformation in order to attain an authentic communion with others. We do not know if Tyconius had his own followers, but it is not improbable. His intended audience was all Christians of good will, both from the Donatist and the Caecilianist parties, who like him desired to live the Gospel, not in a sectarian manner, but in a spiritual communion with others. Tyconius seems to opt for the idea that the church is not born catholic but becomes catholic by carrying out the project of unity. That is why the project of ecumenical or interreligious dialogue should not be removed from catholic theology. The Catholic church becomes catholic when she engages in dialogue with the other, making the project of unity a reality. This process of harmonisation begins on the personal level, as a condition, in order to reach the communal level. The catholic and spiritual community occurs wherever there is a spiritual person. It is an authentic believer who makes the universal church, while any kind of a caricature of Christianity negates its catholicity. In Tyconius, the hermeneutic category of synecdoche (pars pro toto) becomes a principle for discerning the catholicity of the church. According to this logic, an individual Christian develops into either a responsible or irresponsible image of the entire church.22

2. Charity as the Response to Hatred Having seen the nature of the church in Tyconius, we now focus on the mission of the church that has to do with charity. Love is a feeling that belongs to human beings, but when this love is nourished, inspired, fortified by God, or is connected with God’s love, then it becomes a charitable attitude, that is, a theological virtue. God not only loves us, but he also demonstrates this in concrete terms by the incarnation of this love in the death and resurrection of his Son.23 In this sense, the charity of the church is in close connection with faith, because “faith is the knowledge born of religious love.”24 In that horizon, we have to interpret what Tyconius teaches, namely, that whoever does not love Christ incarnated in their brothers or sisters becomes part of the Antichrist.25 Such a person agrees with the perpetual attitude of hatred which is the devil’s domain. See EA I, 466–8. See Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est. Encyclical Letter on Christian Love, nos. 12–15, 25 December, 2005, in AAS 98 (2006), 227–30. 24 Bernard J.F. Lonergan, Method in Theology (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 115. 25 Cf. LR VI, 4.218–20: “Aliud maius et evidentius signum agnoscendi Antichristi non esse dixit, quam qui negat Christum in carne, id est odit fratrem.” (“He [John] said that there is not another greater and more evident sign for knowing the Antichrist than that one denies Christ in the flesh, that is, one who hates his brother”). 22 23

224

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

Specifying even more, charity as a virtue is a process, because, as Aristotle claims, no one is born virtuous, but becomes virtuous by doing virtuous actions.26 Analogously we can say that no one is born an authentic Christian, but becomes one by loving others. Charity as a virtue is also a means that brings us to fulfilment. In Tyconius’ case, charity is a criterion for verifying the authenticity of the Christian life. It must be a loving attitude, not only towards good brothers or sisters, but above all towards evil brothers and sisters who seek to destroy the path towards the unity of the church. Charity is, above all, the state of a spiritual life that comes from God and returns to God. As a virtue, charity is not an end in itself, but leads human beings towards an ultimate end. From Tyconius’ texts we can deduce that the ultimate end that the church desires is union with the perfect Good that is God. 2.1 Union of Charity Between the Head and Its Body In order to understand the mediation of the charitable church, it is necessary to comprehend the theological logic of mediation, in which God the Father, who wants the salvation of all, is the starting point. This is made concrete in the Absolute and Universal Mediator – Jesus Christ, whom Tyconius defines as the Head of the body, which is the church. It is from there that our understanding of charity in Tyconius’ theological system must begin. The African theologian affirms his belief in the divinity of Christ and his union with the Father by saying: “Dominus autem noster non est Dei filius praedestinatus, quia Deus est et coaequalis est Patri” (“Our Lord is not the predestined Son of God, because he is God and is the co-equal of the Father”).27 God’s very nature is love and that is why he desires to share it with human beings. Christ is the Mediator between God the Father, because his becoming human makes him a natural representative of all humanity and his divine essence opens humanity’s access to the Father (cf. Eph 5:30; Gal 4:4–5; Rom 8:29) – the kenotic dynamism of Christ toward humanity opens the anabatic dynamism of humanity toward God. Christ’s function as Mediator is, therefore, two-dimensional – he reveals to humanity the divine love and leads humanity back to unity with God. This process of mediation takes place in a special way in the church – the body of Christ, which Tyconius seems to consider a specific microcosm. Having clarified who the Mediator is and what his qualifications are to perform this function, we shall ask ourselves, how does the body benefit by Christ’s mediation? For Tyconius, Christ and the church constitute an inseparable unity, as Christ is in the church, so also the church is in Christ.28 The love between the Head and the body unites them and makes the body capable 26

2.1.

27 28

See Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, ed. Ingram Bywater (Oxford: Clarendon, 1894), LR I, 12.18–10; cf. EA II, 242–3. See LR I, 4.212–18.1–3; EA II, 223–4; VII, 22; 432–3.

2. Charity as the Response to Hatred

225

of accomplishing the wishes of its Head,29 “for there is nothing that he does or has without his body.”30 This Pauline image of union of love between Christ and his church (cf. Eph 4:15–16) is further enriched by Tyconius, who says, for example, that Christ is clothed in the church like in a garment (“vestimentum Christi ecclesia est;” “Dominus est amictus ecclesia”),31 or that the church is the long robe of the apocalyptic Son of Man (cf. Rev 1:13).32 Christ as the Head, mediates himself to the body by being incarnated in the new members of the church, and the body acquires a claim to participate in the supernatural love of the Head. He reveals to the church the truth of God and truth about God who is Love. The incarnation, the life and the sacrifice of Christ on the cross are expressions of God’s salvific love for humanity. The good members of the church, who are firmly attached to the Head of the body, continually receive from Christ the power to fight evil through the same means which he used, that is, love and compassion.33 This principle is the starting-point for understanding why Tyconius does not exclude sinners from the church, as his fellow Donatists did, but desires to embrace them with the love of God. As Christ’s sacrificial love toward humanity is a mystery, so also the sacrifice of the body united to Christ that responds with love to the provocation of brothers who do not know the love of Christ, is a mystery. The mystery of God’s love embraces also mysterium facinoris (2 Thess 2:7a). Benedict XVI expressed in his Encyclical Deus Caritas Est what Tyconius understood many centuries earlier, namely, that union with Christ is also union with all those to whom he gives himself. I cannot possess Christ just for myself. I can belong to him only in union with all those who have become, or who will become, his own. Communion draws me out of myself toward him, and thus also toward unity with all Christians.34

Christ, though differently received, gives himself to both good and evil brothers and sisters in the same way, because his love is without measure. He loves his wounded and divided body joined in a single existence, and he does not remain passive, but continually regenerates his love through the healed part of the church in order to draw everyone to himself, who is the Head. The church’s love “grounded in and shaped by faith” becomes agape, that is, “oblative love,”

See LR I, 61–6; VI 4.214–16; EA I, 123–24; II, 245–6. EA II, 2522–23: “nihil est enim quod faciat aut habeat sine suo corpore.” 31 Cf. EA VII, 31–3; III, 503–7. 32 See EA I, 12–6. 33 See EA I, 325–7; II, 4327–29; V, 293–4; VII, 141–3. 34 Benedict XVI, Deus caritas est, no. 14, 228–29: “Cum Christo coniunctio est eadem opera cum ceteris omnibus conosciatio, quibus ipse se tradit. Christum pro me uno habere non possum; ad eum pertinere possum solummodo cum iis omnibus, qui ipsius facti sunt fientve. A memet ipso extrahit me communio ad eum, et sic etiam ad unitatem cum omnibus Christianis ducit.” 29

30

226

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

which should eventually characterise every member of Christ’s body.35 Though Tyconius does not say it directly, it is clear that for him every Christian is another Christ (Christianus alter Christus), and hating him would be equivalent to the rejection of Christ’s coming in the flesh. 2.2 Church as the Mediator of Charity The church by its nature is part of this mystery of mediation, and she accomplishes this through the sacraments, evangelisation and the members of the believing community. As we have said, the good part of the body of Christ has a vocation to live in charity and become the bearer of it towards the evil part in order to interrupt the mysterium facinoris (2 Thess 2:7a). In this sense, the church is a mediator of healing for her sick part, which cultivates hatred, and in this way makes a gradual recovery of the lost unity. This process begins in the bipartite church but ends after the final separation (discessio [cf. 2 Thess 2:3b]). This means that the theology of mediation implies not only a positive, but also, as we see in Tyconius’ ecclesiology, a negative aspect. The evil brothers or sisters of the church are mediators of the devil, who is, in turn, their mediator. And so, the actions of this group become a mediation that leads toward division, lies, selfishness, sin, that is, toward the lack of authentic charity. Tyconius notes that as the good ones are Christ’s throne in the church, so also Satan is enthroned in the hearts of the evil ones (cf. Rev 2:13; 2 Thess 2:4b).36 In both cases there is a logic of mediation, but with a substantial difference. In the case of good brothers and sisters, the Holy Spirit guarantees harmony between the mediated invisible reality and the immediate visible reality. The good part of the church that is guided by the Holy Spirit is able to exercise the mystical experience and thus connect the visible with the invisible. This means that the good ones manifest the mystical mediation in charity as an ecclesial mission because they are united to their Head – Christ, who is Charity and the foundation of the church. In the case of the evil brothers and sisters, who are part of the church, the devil is the one who invisibly inspires and sustains their inner wickedness. As a result, their “mission” – the mysterium facinoris (2 Thess 2:7a) becomes visible through acts of hypocrisy and selfishness, which destroys the harmony that constitutes the unity of the good ones. Therefore, there is no mystical experience in them, but a spiritual worldliness and the spirit of the Antichrist. They are unable to manifest charity, so they live and express the nature of their head which is hatred. The authentic union with Christ must first transform the good brothers and sisters into the attitude of their Head and awaken in them a desire to share God’s charity by engaging their will and intellect. An individual decision to 35 See ibid., no. 7, 223: “amor proprie Christianus esse dicebatur descendens, oblativus, id est agape.” 36 See EA I, 224–5; V, 364.

3. Process of Conversion Towards the Good

227

embrace this process of being one with the Head becomes fruitful for the entire ecclesial community. It seems that, for Tyconius, charity is an indispensable expression of the church’s very being that makes her alive and authentic. The good part of the church, by developing the intimacy of charity with God through Jesus Christ, absorbs the mysterium caritatis (the mystery of charity). God gives himself in a mystery to those who open their will and enables them to act in the same genuine way towards those who are filled with hatred. The mysterium caritatis is a divine way of responding to the hatred generated by the mysterium facinoris (2 Thess 2:7a). The suffering of the body of Christ because of the presence and activity of the “mystery of evil” in its midst, is, for Tyconius, participation in the life of Christ, the Head of the body who makes his body capable of not only bearing injustice patiently, but also producing acts of charity towards the oppressors. The theological virtue of charity involves both the material and the spiritual order of the church. It is not only a spiritual attitude or sensibility, but a reality which must also be manifested. In this sense, charity has a connection with agape, because love for the invisible God is made concrete by loving a visible brother, and in this way the one who loves not only separates himself spiritually from the hatred of the Antichrist, but above all, awakens the love of Christ in the church.

3. Process of Conversion Towards the Good For Tyconius, the call to inner conversion of the whole church that emerges from the prophetic exhortations and warnings of Scripture, is the voice of the Holy Spirit who is active in the body of Christ. By reconciling and uniting members of the body to its Head, the Spirit reveals the church’s potential of triumphing over the “Man of sin” and the “mystery of evil” (2 Thess 2:3c.7a). Abandoning the life of sin and embracing the grace of God begins a conscious spiritual journey towards the Supreme Good. Christ, as the Perfect Good, extends his goodness to both good and evil brothers and sisters of the same body. Their positive or negative response to this transcendental reality has an enormous consequence for their life. Every human being has hidden in his or her inner depth an inexorable desire for good. It is noticeable also among ones who believe in a false or illusionary good, but are not able to recognise that God gives to humans the capacity to generate good even from evil. Paradoxically, the church must somehow learn the “value” of evil if she wants to discover the potential for good. The tragedy of human beings begins when he or she absolutizes the finite good and closes him/herself from the one and only true Good that transcends any finite good. Persons cannot be satisfied with a finite good, because his or her very nature is oriented to reach that Absolute

228

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

Good.37 As a result of this attitude, human beings reduce themselves to very primitive experiences, which depersonalise their life and deprive them of their real identity. Tyconius, therefore, calls for conversion toward the Good, which is the fruit of a charitable attitude in the body of the church. For Tyconius, Christian baptism is the moment of the “first resurrection” (see Rev 20:4–6), when one becomes a real member of the church, is filled with the Holy Spirit, and equipped with the power to live a holy life.38 The African theologian is, however, aware of how easily this grace can be lost, and how one can irresponsibly break away from the Supreme Good and follow the Evil One. That is why repentance is, for him, the beginning of the Christian life, which somehow prolongs or even re-actualises the grace of baptism and prevents the transition from Christ’s to the devil’s part. Tyconius’ concept of repentance has, however, little to do with a repetitive performance of ecclesiastical penances, but deals with the inner transformation of the Christian, which we can call a mystical conversion. In our case, “mysticism” means communion with the Spirit or with the ways of the Spirit, which can become a subjective experience of an individual Christian. Tyconius sees repentance as a spiritual martyrdom that is able to shape a member of the church and open him up into authentic communion with its Head. Tyconius’ view of the Christian community as the martyr community of the last times of tribulation differs from that of Augustine, whose comprehension of the church as a mixed reality is related to the image of the pilgrim state of the church.39 For Tyconius, the times of tribulation already take place in the church, but there is yet time for responding positively to the call of the Spirit who invites both good and evil members of the church to repentance. In Tyconius’ way of thinking, the conscious acceptance of this call should characterise the entire Christian life and become the most prominent feature of the whole church. This spiritual martyrdom distinguishes the true members of the church from those who only pretend to belong to Christ. In fact, martyria, together with diakonia, liturgia and koinonia, were the constitutive aspects of the ancient institutional church, an authentic Christian life and the spiritual basis of kerygma.40 See Luca Del Pozzo, Filosofia cristiana e politica in Augusto Del Noce (Roma: I libri del Borghese, 2019), 82. 38 See LR IV, 8.1–8.2. Tyconius understands the “first resurrection” that occurs in the Christian baptism to be prefigured in the text of Ezekiel, even when it seems to speak of the resurrection of the flesh in the eschaton. 8.116–17: “in novissima resurrectione prima significatur.” (“in the final resurrection the first resurrection is signified”). In this way he describes what is to transpire in the “final resurrection.” 39 See Augustine, Ennarationes in Psalmos 42.8 (PL 36.482); Pamela Bright, “Augustine and the Thousand Year Reign of Saints,” in Augustine Presbyter Factus Sum, Collectanea Augustiniana, eds. Joseph T. Lienhard, Earl C. Muller, and Roland J. Teske (New York: Lang, 1993), 447–53. 40 For a deeper study of this argument see the recent competent study of Angelo di Berardino, Istituzioni della Chiesa Antica (Venezia: Marcianum Press, 2019). 37

3. Process of Conversion Towards the Good

229

The false brothers and sisters reject the call of the Spirit and remain earthly and united with the evil of the world, that is, with the body of the devil. The Spirit not only invites them to repentance but also helps those who strive to be with Christ to realise that repentance is actually a means for their spiritual separation (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) from the unholiness of the world. The right part of the bipartite church is “given to humility for the acknowledgment of the righteousness of God and for the recollection of repentance.”41 Tyconius desired that repentance would be embraced as an ordinary state of Christian being that enables a good member of the body of Christ to grow in hatred for evil and in love for good.42 The right part of the church, which understands repentance as a change of heart, naturally turns toward the Supreme Good. They are surrounded by evil and suffering, and they live in the midst of sinners (cf. 2 Thess 2:7c), but their striving for the good on earth elevates their minds to contemplate the Eternal Good. They are aware of the fact that evil is rooted in human free will and cannot be completely eradicated before its separation (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) from good, but they also know that it is possible to avoid evil and follow the path of goodness. In his Contra Celsum, Origen argues that there are two extremities – the one of goodness that exists in the human nature of Jesus, and the opposite extremity that exists in the Antichrist. Similarly to Tyconius, Origen points out that God “willed to tell men about these things through the prophets, in order that those who understood their words might be made lovers of what is better, and be on their guard against the opposite.”43 Tyconius clearly states that “all the things which God made are good,” but the devil and his people can change “their use, but not their nature.”44 The supernatural correlation between good and evil has been summarised well by Antonio Quacquarelli, who notices that evil is limited in space and time, in the sense that it operates only in this world; good has no space and no time, in the sense that it operates in this world to unite itself to infinity. The man who does evil precludes himself from the way of salvation; the man who does good is eternal in himself, because he is already bound to the kingdom of heaven.45

41 EA III, 245–7: “alia humiliationi traditur ad cognitionem iustitiae dei et commemorationem paenitentiae.” 42 See, for example, LR II, 114–7; VII, 12.226–27.1–4; EA I, 2725–37; V, 351–7. See also Hahn, Tyconius-Studien, 46–56. 43 Origen, Contra Celsum, 6.45 (SC 136:2), trans. Henry Chadwick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 362. 44 Cf. LR VII, 14.2ffv: “Omnia enim quae fecit Deus bona sunt; horum diabolus usum non naturam mutauit.” 45 Antonio Quacquarelli, “La concezione della Storia in Ticonio,” in Studi di Storia medievale e moderna in onore di Ettore Rota, eds. Pietro Vaccari and P.F. Palumbo (Roma: Ed. del Lavoro, 1958), 28.

230

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

For Tyconius, the supreme objective of evil is the separation from the Lord, the Head of the body, which Augustine classifies as eternal death in contrast to the Supreme Good, which is eternal life with God.46 In the good part, there is a freely positive decision and response to the Supreme Good, which is the Head of the body, while the evil part decides and responds in its freedom negatively to Christ and positively to devil. One can ask himself, what is behind these two types of answers? The good brothers and sisters strive to be consistent with the divine power that enlightens them, whereas the evil ones let themselves be influenced by earthly power and become spiritually blind to the divine reality. In order to embrace the process of conversion, the church must be aware of her own identity and her own activity in the present, but also in view of her future. As we have said earlier, from Tyconius’ thought emerges a need for conversion that we call, using his language, mystical. In general, the mystical conversion of the church means entering into the way of thinking of the Holy Spirit who acts in both parts of the church, calling them to an authentically Christian life. This conversion or its abscence becomes visible either in the adaptation or non-adaptation of the nature of the church to the demands of the Holy Spirit. In concrete terms, it is a matter of the opening of the mind and will of all members of the church to the Authentic Good. This openness helps them to know and desire the Supreme Good. The unawareness of the bipartite reality of the church is the common starting point for the conversion of all members of the body of Christ. The part of the church that listens to the voice of the Spirit manages to become aware of the positive function of bipartition and freely chooses the Supreme Good in order to do good for others. In contrast, the part of the church that closes itself to the presence of the Holy Spirit consequently opens itself to the inspiration of the devil and, therefore, does not perceive the bipartition as a means that can lead to a mystical conversion. In this case there is a rootedness in the choice of evil that produces another evil. We can call this the state of spiritual corruptibility. The Holy Spirit, as Tyconius often stresses, acts in a hidden but effective way in those who open themselves to his inspiration. This effectiveness of the Spirit is seen in a believing community that desires Good and does good. In order to make this desire clearer, the community must freely undergo a continuous process of conversion. From Tyconius’ coherent logic displayed in his texts, 46 See Augustine, De civitate Dei 19.4 (PL 41.627): “Si ergo quaeratur a nobis, quid civitas Dei de his singulis interrogate respondeat, ac primum de finibus bonorum malorumque quid sentiat, respondebit aeternam vitam esse summum bonum, aeternam vero mortem summum malum: propter illam proinde adipiscendam, istamque vitandam, recte nobis esse vivendum.” Eng. trans. The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009): “If, then, we be asked what the city of God has to say upon these points, and, in the first place, what its opinion regarding the supreme good and evil is, it will reply that life eternal is the supreme good, death eternal the supreme evil, and that to obtain the one and escape the other we must live rightly.”

3. Process of Conversion Towards the Good

231

we can deduce that the action of the Holy Spirit and the process of conversion are two expressions of the same mystical reality, that is, a relationship between divine grace and human response.47 We can add even more by saying that this dynamism of grace is expressed in the relationship between the objectivity of the Spirit who addresses the church through Scripture and the church who as a subjective agent interprets Scripture mystically, that is, according to the will of the Spirit. We must now focus on the act of conversion of the Christian community, and in order to do this, we propose in this study to highlight at least six levels that can help us better understand this mystical process. Let us not forget that in this itinerary there is a convergence between the gift of the Holy Spirit and the conscious response of the believer (the human act). Otherwise, it would become a voluntaristic rather than a spiritual itinerary. The starting point for this spiritual journey is the inner perception that a community makes on the basis of concrete facts from the church’s life. The essential content that the church perceives is bipartition as a destructive evil in her midst (cf. 2 Thess 2:7ac). From this fact, the Christian community awakens the natural desire for unity, which reflects the harmony of divine life, which is the Supreme Good. Subsequently, the church makes a reflexive judgment, stating that the desire for unity is an attainable good because the church knows that she is assisted by the action of the Holy Spirit. Being free, the church further exercises a community discernment in order to choose the strategy that most effectively directs the process towards the desired unity. After that, this good part of the church makes a deliberate decision to bring to completion the desire for unity among all the members of the body of Christ. Concretely, this decision has an imperative that we can define as the performance of charity, which is expressed in penance and reconciliation, but also by responding to evil with good. This is a sign of an authentic Christian community, which through discernment, learns to make a transition from a disposition to do good (benevolentia), to actually doing good (beneficentia). The good, which is the operative presence of God, spreads itself through the relationships that brothers and sisters build in their community. This proposal is consistent with Tyconius’ thinking. We must look at his personal Christian attitude as a model of the process of mystical conversion to which all members of the church are invited. We must not forget, as we have already said, that until the final separation (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b), there is a possibility for the mystical conversion of the evil members of the church, as well as for the spiritual corruption of the good members. In the Expositio Apocalypseos, Tyconius notices that “earlier God allowed some to go out …, because a time for returning still existed. But in the last time one is not permitted to go out

47

See EA II, 572–5.

232

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

any longer, because if anyone at that time goes out, he will not have time for returning.”48 Bipartition among the members of the church naturally shifts our theological attention to the individual member of the body of Christ. It is logical to think that what occurs outside a human being, for example, in the community, is somehow an expression of his or her inner situation. The bipartition among members of Christ’s body mirrors, therefore, the bipartition of their nature.

4. Bipartition in the Nature of Human being French historians, Jean Danielou and Henri Marrou, described the Fourth Century as “an era of proud characters, of adamant minds and stubborn schism, often ‘schisms of the soul’ reaching the level of conscience, usually torn between two equally demanding but contradictory types of loyalty.”49 The words of those Christian academics accurately demonstrate the correlation between painful divisions in the African church and the inner bipartite condition of human beings. For Tyconius, the vital context of man (Sitz im Leben) is the church, without which the human nature cannot be understood. In this specific microcosm, humans are born and mature spiritually, being in a continuous process of development until their eschatological fulfilment. In fact, a human being is created for the eschatological reality, in which he or she is already placed, but still oriented toward its final phase.50 This does not mean that there are no other people outside the church, a kind of a macrocosm composed of pagans or Jews,51 but Tyconius concentrates all his energy on the people of the church and, in this way, he makes his own contribution to Christian anthropology. In fact, the texts used by Tyconius, of both Old and New Testaments, make us understand that man and woman are created by God in Christ, the Head of the body, which is the church. The anthropomorphic language (head – body) with which the African theologian operates, evidently justifies his anthropological perspective and allows us to affirm that at the centre of Tyconius’ thought lies 48 EA I, 4312–15: “Antea vero propterea deus aliquos exire passus est, quia supererat tempus redeundi. Novissime autem amplius quemquam exire non patitur, quoniam quisquis tunc foras exierit, tempus redeundi non habebit.” 49 Jean Danielou, Henrie I. Marrou, Historia Kościoła: Od początków do roku 600, trans. Maria Tarnowska, vol. 1 (Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy Pax, 1986), 193 (orig. pub. Nouvelle Histoire de l’Eglise: Des origines à Grégoire le Grand, vol. 1 [Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1963]). 50 Jürgen Moltmann well summarises the human reality by stating that “being human means becoming human in this process,” in God in Creation. A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God, trans. Margaret Kohl (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 227 (orig. pub. Gott in der Schöpfung: Ökologische Schöpfungslehre [München: Kaiser, 1985]). 51 See EA , I, 194–7.

4. Bipartition in the Nature of Human being

233

the members of the church. As Corpus Antichristi dwells in the Corpus Christi, so also analogically in human beings, who are fundamentally good (secundum originem), evil resides (secundum voluntatem) as well. This mysterious composition of the human being makes him or her unique in the order of creation, but at the same time responsible for his or her own spiritual integration or disintegration. Each Christian, in Tyconius’ view, is called to destroy in himself the “Man of sin” (2 Thess 2:3c) and make the Man of Grace emerge. 4.1 The Mystery of Being Human The struggle in the church is nothing more than the result of the ongoing tension between moral decisions within human nature. Each person finds in him/herself a similar bipartition that exists in the church, that is, he or she mirrors the conditions of the church and participates in these conditions. Hence, the church becomes the paradigmatic image of a believer’s existence. Paraphrasing the Aristotelian-Thomist statement anima forma corporis (the soul is the form of the body) we can say that homo forma ecclesia (man is the form of the church) and it includes both aspects: homo peccati (2 Thess 2:3c) and homo gratiae. It is not improbable that Tyconius’ lost work De bello intestino (On civil war) could also have spoken about the “internal war” within a human being’s inner self, since this is the basic meaning of the term intestinum found particularly in Christian circles of the early church.52 Tyconius’ human being is not only good, beautiful and truthful but also evil, ugly and false. This is precisely the human mystery: the opposites that coincide in the same human substance. Reading the African theologian, one can quickly conclude that his fundamental concern is not the church in general, but the member of the church and his or her bipartite spiritual condition. Analogically, as the church that is internally divided constitutes a totality, so also human beings in their wholeness experience contradictory forces like, for example, their dignity and their misery. A human being has, however, a capacity to be in a constant dynamic process of transformation into what he and she is supposed to be in God’s eternal thought, and is provided with all the necessary means which lead him/her into that divine purpose. If humans were a static being, that is, only good, beautiful and truthful, then God would appear as an authoritarian and cruel ruler who does not share his own freedom with his creatures. The Donatists in Tyconius’ time saw their church as pure and authentic, and therefore her members felt like chosen elites with no need of purification and conversion. In Tyconius’ thought, a human being has the capacity to journey towards proper authenticity, even if there is a risk of getting lost by wrong decisions. Therefore, human 52 For the meaning of “bellum intestinum” see, for example, the article of Johannes van Oort, “De bello intestino,” 125–40. The term bello intestino is used twice in EA (I, 528–29, 11132) referring to the internal struggle between the true and false brothers and sisters within the church.

234

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

nature is bipartite, but oriented toward the eschatological unity and definitive harmony. In this anthropological assumption, even evil can become a stimulus to conversion and a way of returning to God. Tyconius, while meditating on the mystery of human nature, promotes a dynamic anthropology, which allows each human to mature in truth and shows God’s faith in a human being and his or her decisive acts. This dynamism and its effects have as their cause another human capacity, also strongly present in Tyconius, that is, the capacity of self-awareness. The anthropological insights that emerge from Tyconius’ works remind us of the philosophical theory of polar opposition (Gegensatz) developed by the great Italian-German thinker Romano Guardini (1885–1968).53 This theory comes from the personal experience of the author who, in his cultural and historical context, gradually acquired awareness of himself, of his own strengths and limits.54 His reflection on human life, close to Lebensphilosophie,55 rejects the reductive and simplified image of the human being offered by idealism and materialism, and prompts him to create a system that allows each human being to explore the deepest mysteries of his or her own nature. Guardini’s point of departure for the development of his system is the recognition that his existence is grasped in the deepest centre by various tensions, as if besieged by extremes that pull him towards suffering. This psychological self-perception becomes for him an impulse for the analysis of the ontological perspective of human life. We do not know if Guardini read Tyconius or was influenced by him, but a very similar psycho-ontological mechanism is found in the African writer, whose personal experience of tensions within the church pushed him to reflect on himself and on the members of the church as trapped between opposing spiritual forces that compete with each other. Gaurdini identifies eight polar pairs, six of which are defined as categorical oppositions (intraempirical and transempirical) and two transcendental oppositions. This approach allows him to see life as form but also as fullness, act but also structure. Life is singularity and totality, production and disposition, originality and rule, immanence and 53 Romano Guardini, L’opposizione polare. Saggio per una filosofia del concreto vivente (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1997) (orig. pub. Der Gegensatz. Versuche zu einer Philosophie des Lebendig-Konkreten [Mainz: Matthias Grünewald, 1925]). 54 See Romano Guardini, Accettare se stessi, trans. Giovanni Pontoglio (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1992), 60 [orig. pub. in Christliche Besinnung, vol. 6, 1953, 5–30]. In 1960 the work was published as a separate monograph: Die Annahme seiner selbst (Würzburg: Werkbund-Verlag); Letter to Richard Wisser of 7.2.1968 cited by Hanna B. Gerl, Romano Guardini. La vita e l’opera (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1988), 287; Romano Guardini, Appunti per un’autobiografia, ed. F. Henrich, trans. G. Penati (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1986), 71 (orig. pub. Berichte über mein Leben: Autobiographische Aufzeichnungen [Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1985]). 55 See Alfons Knoll, Glaube und Kultur bei Romano Guardini (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1994), 77–79.

4. Bipartition in the Nature of Human being

235

transcendence, affinity and distinction, unity and plurality.56 These various oppositions do not stand in contradiction to each other but serve each other. He refuses the idea of the one-sidedness of life, its purity, or one-way direction. Life is not just a single configuration of meaning, but it is marked by a distorted physiognomy, absurdity, or it has a lack of meaning.57 Guardini defines the phenomena of the polar oppositions in the following terms: “this peculiar relationship in which two moments exclude each other and yet connect each other, this relationship that appears in every quantitative, qualitative and formal determination, I call it opposition.”58 Then he adds that in the opposition “two moments, each of which is in itself unmistakable, inseparable, immovable, are nevertheless inextricably linked to one another; indeed, one can only think of one through the other.”59 Two moments are therefore contrary or opposing, but not contradictory – they do not exclude each other, but they operate on the basis of complementation and integration. This means that in the contrariety there is a possibility of a relationship between opposed moments, that is, a simultaneous coexistence of exclusion and inclusion.60 Guardini’s oppositions are one inside the other, in reciprocal interpenetration and in a reciprocal equilibrating relationship.61 When we look at Tyconius, it could seem that he deals not with oppositions (Gegensatz), but contradictions (Widerspruch) like good – evil, true – false, or beautiful – ugly. It is true, these categories logically exclude each other, but in his theological system, they coexist both in the church and in the human being, and this is precisely what makes human nature mysteriously bipartite. This extremely active and dynamic process described by Guardini finds many echoes in Tyconius’ system, in which mysterium facinoris (2 Thess 2:7a) coexists with, what we might call, mysterium bonorum, and only together do they constitute mysterium hominis. Tyconius is right when he says that “man has in himself both evil (facinorum) and pure treasures.” 62 Both opposing mysteries relate to each other and attempt to influence each other, because they are enclosed in a living being that is able to decide to give energy to each of those forces. Before the final eschatological separation (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) nothing in a human being can be so pure and stable that it needs no more improvement or conversion. As for Tyconius so also for Guardini – “life itself is continuous change; a continuous becoming different, and therefore a continuous passing.”63 He eventually 56 For a precise geometrical representation of polar oppositions see Guardini, L’opposizione polare, 208–12. 57 See ibid., 155. 58 Ibid., 29. 59 Ibid., 42. 60 See ibid., 89. 61 See ibid., 153. 62 LR VII, 14.35–6: “Et homo in se habet thesauros tam facinorum quam perspicuos.” 63 Guardini, L’opposizione polare, 36.

236

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

states, using Tyconius’ term, that life or a concrete living person can exist only as a “bipartite” reality, but at the same time remaining as one.64 Guardini’s system shows a complex image of human existence which cannot yet be liberated from living in a complication of oppositions. For him, that is simply the way human life is composed.65 Experience of opposition is an existential necessity which, on the one hand, is a positive value, but on the other hand, can be destructive for those who do not respect the established balance.66 Guardini comes to the conclusion that the balance between oppositions is temporary and transitory, but it leads into the permanent and perfect balance that is found only in the supreme life of God.67 The polar opposition or bipartition in human beings, as presented by Tyconius, becomes a key to understanding the complex reality of a believer who is struggling between truth and falsity, but searches for God and so approaches his inner unity and integrity. 4.2 Self-awareness of the Member of the Church As far as we are able to understand Tyconius’ thought, we can see that human life is an existential drama, a continuous inner struggle, because in the nature of the human being two opposing forces converge in different ways. These can be expressed, for example, in truth and falsehood, holiness and sin, love and hate, but also in his or her personal and communal being. The historical existence of the human being confirms the drama of the clash between the good of life that comes from God and its annulment because of death brought about by evil: a clash nourished in the heart of human being by the stubborn action of the mystery of iniquity, whose incurable hatred is animated by the radical, irrevocable choice to reject ‘God and his Kingdom’.68

If man and woman are created by God in Christ, it means that he and she is thought to become the Imago Christi Capitis as Christ is the Imago Dei, the true image of God. In the incarnation of Christ, the perfect Human being, is found the perfect unity. Each person is called to achieve this perfection by assuming the unity of Christ in him/herself and by renewing his or her lost dignity because of sin. Naturally, a human being becomes the image of Christ to the extent that he or she lives in truth. But in the exercise of his or her freedom, the same human being can radically damage his or her call to be the Imago Christi Capitis and become the Imago Diaboli Capitis when he or she lives in

See ibid., 90. See ibid., 142. 66 See ibid., 206. 67 See ibid., 108, 123–24. 68 Alberto Castaldini, Dolore del mondo e mistero di iniquità. Il male in Romani 8,18–39 (Canterano: Aracne, 2020), 27–28. 64 65

4. Bipartition in the Nature of Human being

237

falsehood. The Imago Christi represents in each person “both gift and charge, indicative and imperative. It is charge and hope, imperative and promise.”69 The mysterium facinoris (2 Thess 2:7a) is a mystery which does not have to be solved, but its significance has to be understood. Tyconius became very aware of its existence, not only in the church, but in each human being. He held that members of the church, who are capable of reason, can understand their own humanity as a bipartite totality, that is, as the most developed form of creation to the point of desiring their final unitary totality in the Imago Christi. This anthropological quality and capacity expresses the dignity of their nature, but it also presumes the necessary conditions for the relationship with Christ which, in turn, elevates this bipartite human nature, precisely because “matter cannot be radically opposed to the one who created it, God participates (even suffering) in the creation that he himself has put into being.”70 In light of this mystery, we have to say that human misery coexists with dignity. This is primarily a deprivation of what man and woman desire to know. It means that there is something in them what inwardly blocks not the desire for truth, but the attainment of it. In this case, deprivation as misery is operated by the spirit of falsehood, that is, the devil who provokes human being to concentrate on evil and obscure the true good. As a result, humans concentrate on what has no value at all, and so looking for misery they become even more miserable than they were before, because they lose the true good and are unable to be aware of what they lack, namely God. In the second place, human misery lies above all in their setting against Christ and so, without realising it, they set themselves, against themselves making themselves even more miserable because of this intentional ignorance. To set oneself against Christ means to turn away from him and therefore to choose closeness with the devil. Let us remember, as we have already said in the third chapter, that God cannot agree with this estrangement, that is to say, with the false autonomy that a human being freely chooses, but he also allows it as a means of punishment that can lead to conversion or condemnation. In addition to the bipartition dignity – misery, another anthropological bipartition emerges from Tyconius’ texts, which helps us to deepen our understanding of the mysterious nature of the human being. Concretely, it is the tension between freedom and slavery. It is right to say that this bipartition belongs to the image of the body that is the ecclesial community, but we can also apply it analogously to a single member of the church. This analogy is not arbitrary, but coherent with the hermeneutical logic of synecdoche often applied by Tyconius. Human freedom is a decision that qualifies a particular modus operandi: when a human being chooses truth, he or she also lives the truth or authenticity as freedom; when a human being chooses falsehood, he or she lives hypocrisy 69 70

Moltmann, God in Creation, 227. Castaldini, Dolore del mondo, 21.

238

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

or non-authenticity as slavery. In this case we can say that the free choice of truth makes one live the authenticity of Christ in a coherent way. In this sense, living in liberating freedom implies a human capacity to recognise him/herself as created by God for the truth and for the good of the world. Otherwise, the free choice of falsehood makes human beings live in slavery because of the devil’s influence. The devil is bound by Christ’s work, but can be active in the heart of the humans who choose to belong to him (sua secundum voluntatem).71 It is clear that the human drama of freedom consists in the dilemma of choosing truth or falsehood, of getting closer to him/herself or more distant from his or her real identity. In the luminous design of human freedom, an axiological orientation and an existential need intertwine with each other. On the one hand we assume a value, in this case we think of the truth, but on the other hand we choose to live out this value responsibly. In the same mystery of the individual person there is a radically opposite possibility, that is, the obscure design of freedom. In this case the axiological aspect becomes a flawed orientation and the existential need for liability is compromised and deformed by negligence. If the existential need for human responsibility is denied, because of the fascination that comes from evil, creatural self-degradation follows. In fact, an irresponsible human being, as Ratzinger writes, “does not recognise the limits of good and evil, the intrinsic measure of creation, denies the truth. Such person lives in lie and unreality. His or her life becomes appearance and falls under the dominion of death.”72 In this irresponsible fatalism, a human being believes in the lie of the enemy, chooses, and follows an anti-value such as falsehood, and contributes to the construction of the “Man of sin” (2 Thess 2:3c). Karol Wojtyła notes that from the very beginning “the history of human being, and with it the history of the world … will be subject to the dominion of the Word and the anti-Word, of the Gospel and the anti-Gospel.”73 This perspective evokes the Pauline dualism, so important for Tyconius, where a human being is conceived as a dwelling place of two different forces, or two different entities (cf. Rom 6:6; Eph 2:15, 4:22–24; Col 3:9–11), who fight with each other.74 In this mystery of human nature, the good part of the human being does not consist in “an imaginary struggle against an impersonal or metaphorical evil, but a conscious act that derives first of all from the faithfulness of the See LR VII, 14.29–10; EA III, 204–7. Joseph Ratzinger-Benedetto XVI, In principio Dio creò il cielo e la terra. Riflessioni sulla creazione e il peccato, trans. C. Danna (Torino: Lindau, 2006), 97 (orig. pub. Im Anfang schuf Gott: Vier Münchener Fastenpredigten über Schöpfung und Fall – Konsequenzen des Schöpfungsglaubens [Freiburg: Einsiedeln, 1996]). 73 Karol Wojtyła, Segno di contraddizione. Meditazioni (Milano: Gribaudi, 2001), 40 (orig. pub. Znak, któremu sprzeciwiać się będą. Rekolekcje w Watykanie od 5 do 12 marca 1976 [Poznań: Pallotinum]). 74 See Ernst Käsemann, Prospettive paoline, ed. F. Montagnini, trans. M. Ravà (Brescia: Paideia, 1972), 102 (orig. pub. Paulinische Perspektiven [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1969]). 71 72

5. Faith and Reason as a Response to God’s Word

239

Lord, who will ‘confirm’ and ‘guard against the evil one’ (2 Thess 3:3) in the love and truth of his Word.”75 In order to further this point, following Joseph De Finance, we can distinguish two levels of freedom that are present in the mysterious human nature: horizontal and vertical.76 In the first level we find the immanent choices that one part of the human agent makes in his or her existential context. In the second case, there is a progressive shift from the immanent to the transcendent level. A person, influenced by the divine Spirit, can make this passage of spiritual growth. For example, in Tyconius, all members of the church in their freedom are called to qualify their communal relationship and to pass from tolerance or human respect to true love. This inner development causes a liberating freedom in each individual. In the same human being, horizontal and vertical freedom can be applied in a negative sense, that is, instead of passing from immanent to transcendent, he or she passes to worldly immanentism. Obviously, mundane immanentism means selfishness and self-sufficiency in relation to others and God. This refusal of God and of the other is nourished by the action of the evil one. Therefore, people always find themselves in this dramatic dilemma of transcendence and immanentism and must choose whether they want to grow or not. Tyconius rightly understood that Donatism does not give this possibility. Its sectarian attitude is an example of immanentism, in which a human being is superficially satisfied with the false image of him/herself and, in fact, closes him/herself off from the need of God and others.

5. Faith and Reason as a Response to God’s Word From the analysis of Tyconius’ texts we discover that in a believer there are two faculties that help him to interpret, know and operate on the mystery present in the mystical rules (regulae mysticae), that is, the ways of the Spirit that are concretised in the prophetic word of Sacred Scripture. These two faculties, in keeping with the Christian theological tradition, of which Tyconius is an important part, are recognised as the supernatural way of faith and the natural way of reason. More precisely, it is what the theological tradition recognises as the duplex ordo cognitionis. Also, in this case it is worth noting the bipartition of theological knowledge. Consequently, in Tyconius, the dualism faith – reason allows the human being to respond to his or her inner desire for ecclesial and eschatological unity in the present. The Scripture becomes, for an inspired believer, a field of dialogue with the Spirit who is the main constructor of human integrity and harmony. To Tyconius’ way of thinking, the capacities of faith and Castaldini, Dolore del mondo, 24. See Joseph De Finance, Essai sur l’agir humain (Rome: Presses de l’Université Grégorienne, 1962), 278–304. 75 76

240

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

reason oblige humans to discover what is already described in Scripture – the workings of the mysterium facinoris (2 Thess 2:7a) – and this awareness makes them desire to grow in the spiritual separation from evil (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b). 5.1 Means for Searching the Spirit’s Ways Tyconius is not the first to deal with the theme of faith and reason, because in his context, the main problem that he had to face was the relationship between the Christian faith and the power of the empire. However, in Tyconius’ texts we find a correlation between faith and reason and it is fair to say that he deals with it in a peculiar way, with the goal to understand the ways of the Spirit. The church in her various historical moments had to handle the complexity of this problem in different ways and it continues until today. In order to comprehend Tyconius’ peculiarity, it might be useful to briefly mention at least three examples from the Christian tradition, that deal with this relationship. The first example in this diachronic journey is Tertullian who, in an apologetic context, asks about the relationship between philosophy and Christianity (philosophical reason – Christian faith) using the well-known metaphor “Athens – Jerusalem,” wondering what Athens and Jerusalem, that is, reason and faith, have in common? Without devaluing the philosophical wealth of Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle, he concludes, in the end, that Christianity is superior to pagan philosophy. In other words, Christian faith is superior to philosophical reason.77 The second example in this process is taken from Christianitas medioevalis, specifically from the Summa de bono of Philip the Chancellor of the University of Paris (around 1230). Bernard Lonergan notes that the French theologian introduces, at the level of theory, two orders of human knowledge (duplex ordo cognitionis): the order “of grace, faith, charity, and merit” and that “of nature, reason, and the natural love of God.”78 Evidently, this dual order can be understood from a perspective of hierarchical juxtaposition, the distinction between them being fundamental and requiring their subordination. Thus, grace is above nature; faith above reason; charity above good will; merit before God above the good esteem that one enjoys in relation with others.79 The third example that serves our purpose is the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius of the First Vatican Council (1868–1870). Chapter Four of this Constitution teaches us that the Catholic Church has always supported the existence of a twofold order of human knowledge, See Tertullian, Apologeticus pro Christianis 46 (PL 1.500–14). See Tertullian, Apology. De Spectaculis, trans. T.R. Glover and Gerald H. Rendall, LCL 250 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931), 1–18. 78 See Bernard J.F. Lonergan, Grace and Freedom: Operative Grace in the Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, eds. Frederick E. Crowe and Robert M. Doran, CWL 1 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000), 17. 79 Ibid., 17. 77

5. Faith and Reason as a Response to God’s Word

241

distinct not only in principle but also in object: (1) in principle, indeed, because we know in one way by natural reason, in another by divine faith; (2) in object, however, because, in addition to things to which natural reason can attain, mysteries hidden in God are proposed to us for belief which, had they not been divinely revealed, could not become known.80

The Council maintains that when a human being decides to enlighten his reason with faith, thus elevating the capacity of his created intellect, he obtains a certain comprehension of the divine mysteries. Certainly, for the Council Fathers, faith is superior to reason, but this does not mean they see it in opposition to reason. On the contrary “they also bring mutual help to each other, since right reasoning demonstrates the basis of faith and, illumined by its light, perfects the knowledge of divine things, while faith frees and protects reason from errors and provides it with manifold knowledge.”81  In the examples highlighted above, it can be seen that faith and reason function in a hierarchical and subordinate way. It is true that although the statute of faith is complementary, it often presents itself as a privileged way to human knowledge. Against this background, a different logic emerges from Tyconius. Our theologian shows us in a particular way that in the bipartite nature of a believer there is a tension between two polar binomials: faith – reason and incredulity – unreasonableness. The first signifies the openness to the Holy Spirit and the second defines the rejection of his divine help. Tyconius clearly indicates that the mystical rules of Scripture are given to Christians as a means (claves et luminaria) for entering into the logic of the Spirit. If the ratio of these rules is accepted, all that is closed will be opened and all that is obscure will be clarified (clausa quaeque patefient et obscura dilucidabuntur).82 He further states that Scripture is like an immense and obscure forest, because in it the Spirit, with its “subtle language” and the multiplicity of his manifestations,83 wanted to “guard the way of light” in order to prevent direct access to his word.84 He reveals, however, to those who accept the seven mystical rules, the treasures of Scripture sine mysteriis vel allegoria.85 The Spirit makes believers aware of the mysterium facinoris (2 Thess 2:7a) described in multiple ways in the Scriptures. The distinctive criterion, or an interpretative model on which rules I, II, VII are based, can be defined as somatological or a divided 80 “non solum principio, sed obiecto etiam distinctum: principio quidem, quia in altero naturali ratione, in altero fide divina cognoscimus; obiecto autem, quia praeter ea, ad quae naturalis ratio pertingere potest, credenda nobis proponuntur mysteria in Deo abscondita, quae nisi revelata divinitus, innotescere non possunt” (in Dezinger, 1800). 81 “sed opem quoque sibi mutuam ferunt, cum recta ratio fidei fundamenta demonstret, eiusque lumine illustrata rerum divinarum scientiam excolat; fides vero rationem ab erroribus liberet ac tueatur, eamque multiplici cognitione instruat” (in Dezinger, 1800). 82 LR Prol.3’–4’. 83 See LR IV, 11–9.1’–8’. 84 See LR VI, 11–5. 85 LR VI, 4.11–2.

242

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

body. In these cases, the ratio alone can discern the true meaning of the text.86 The interpretative model of rules IV, V, VI is tropological and is based on various forms of synecdoche, species – genus, from singular to plural, from part to whole, and vice versa. In this case the ratio has to be supported by “faith which seeks the grace of God” (fidem quae gratiam Dei quaerat).87 The third rule, which presents the history of salvation in the tension between the promise and the law, is fundamental for the complex dialectic that distinguishes and unites the parts of the body in opposition to one another.88 Through the binomial faith – reason, the light of the Holy Spirit is revealed in the human being, which facilitates his or her openness to the logic of the mystical rules in order to understand the truth of divine Revelation. The concordance between faith and reason introduces humans into an inner harmony with themselves and with divine reality. In the second binomial of bipartition (incredulity – unreasonableness) the knowledge of the truth is obscured and denied by a human being. He or she is not aware of being used by the devil for the construction and working of the mysterium facinoris (2 Thess 2:7a). In this case incredulity is a closure to the action of the Holy Spirit and unreasonableness is a corruption and deformation of sound reason. The obvious effect of this binomial is an inner confusion and fragmentation of the human being, and therefore one experiences an unbalanced and disharmonious way of living. We still have to indicate that in the relationship between these two binomials there is a mutual influence of growth or reduction. The more a human being is strengthened in the faith – reason correlation, the more his or her incredulity and unreasonableness are weakened and vice versa. Each believer in his or her inner being has to control this tension and strive for concordance with the ways of the Spirit. Ratzinger notices, in the previously mentioned Introduction to Christianity, that “there is no escape from the dilemma of being a man,” because “just as the believer knows himself to be constantly threatened by unbelief, which he must experience as a continual temptation, so for the unbeliever faith remains temptation and a threat to this apparently permanently closed world.”89 The bipartition shows the truth about human beings, in which “unceasing rivalry between doubt and belief, temptation and certainty”90 coexist. Carlo Maria Martini goes even further, accurately verbalising our perception of Tyconius’ anthropological insights, by saying that

See LR I, 11–3; II, 11–7; VII, 11–5. LR IV, 2.28. 88 See Marcello Marin, “Orientamenti di esegesi biblica dei Padri,” in Complementi Interdisciplinari di Patrologia, ed. Antonio Quacquarelli (Roma: Città Nuova, 1989), 295; Gaeta, “Il Liber Regularum di Ticonio,” 114–15. 89 Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 45. 90 Ibid., 47. 86

87

5. Faith and Reason as a Response to God’s Word

243

inside of each one of us there is a non-believer and a believer, who talk to each other, question each other, continuously send each other pungent and disturbing questions. The nonbeliever who is in me disturbs the believer who is in me and vice versa. The appropriation of this inner dialogue is important. Through it everyone grows in self-awareness; the clarity and sincerity of this dialogue seem to be synonymous with human maturity.91

There is, therefore, no other way for human beings to obtain inner unity and harmony except a confrontation with the inner tension that takes place within them. 5.2 The Holy Scriptures as the Mediator of Divine Mysteries We have already spoken about the church as the mediator. Here we want to discuss the theology of mediation, but expressed through the Holy Scriptures. Tyconius’ great reverence for Scripture comes from the fact that he recognises the Holy Spirit as its author. Many times he says explicitly that Spiritus narravit (narrated),92 signavit (sealed),93 dicit (says),94 voluit (wanted),95 or speaks subtlety with a codified and obscure language, in which the smallest details are important,96 and whose meaning must be grasped beyond the words.97 The Holy Spirit has the authority to open what has been shut in the Scriptures98 and, enlighten the intelligence and faith of the readers, making them disposed to receive divine mysteries and recognise the existence of the mysterium facinoris (2 Thess 2:7a). Tyconius’ teaching on Scripture and the Spirit brings us to a fascinating theological question about an inspired reader. It is obvious, for the African theologian, that it is not enough to have a text which is inspired, but a text needs an inspired reader whose reason and faith are submitted to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Second Vatican Council speaks about the theology of the Word of God and about the relation between God’s word and the word of human authors, declaring that the “Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written.”99 According to Tyconius’ way of thinking, the Word of God is the living word for the church and each individual believer, even for those outside the church, as he himself happened to be. The only condition for being an inspired reader is the observance of the seven mystical rules (ratio 91 Carlo M. Martini, Le Cattedre dei non credenti, ed. Virginio Pontiggia (Milano: Saggi Bompiani, 2015), 6. 92 LR IV, 18. 93 LR VI, 11. 94 LR VI, 3.214; VII, 17.121. 95 LR VI, 4.18. 96 LR IV, 16; VI, 14–5. 97 LR VI, 4.17–9. 98 LR Prol. 99 Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum, in Vatican Council II: Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations, ed. Austin Flannery (Northport: Costello, 1996), no. 12.

244

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

regularum), which means, an intimate relationship with the grace of the Holy Spirit. As for Origen, as well as for Tyconius, the interpretation of Scripture is a graced activity which only the Author of the Scriptures can facilitate: “For this reason, the grace of God, whose aid we ask, must aid us”.100 The reader of Scripture, who does not rely on human eloquence but is guided by the Spirit, begins to penetrate divine mysteries, builds his or her faith (fidem constitueret)101 and opens him/herself for mystical conversion.102 Ulrich Körtner, a German-Austrian Protestant theologian, presents a similar understanding of the role of the reader. He considers the reader of the text, not the writer of the text, as a starting-point for the construction of a theology of inspiration. He argues that in the biblical texts the so-called “implicit reader”103 is already present. Körtner underlines a dialectical relationship between text and reader in which the meaning of the text is actualised in the present. He states: “in the act of reading the reader gets involved with the text in order thereby to bring the text to completion and at the same time to allow him or herself to be reconstituted as a subject.”104 According to Körtner, the “reader implied by the biblical text is a reader inspired by the Spirit of God.” It does not mean that he or she imposes any meaning upon the text, but “the meaning of the biblical texts constitutes itself anew in such acts of reading in which the reader of these texts learns to understand him or herself in a new way, which the language of Christian tradition describes as faith.”105 For Tyconius, the function of the sacred text appears to be bipartite as well. It is accessible and inaccessible at the same time, depending on the inspired or uninspired reader.106 In Tyconius’ teaching on inspiration, the Spirit performs the function of Katechon (cf. 2 Thess 2:6a.7b), because he “withholds” (obtinet) “from some” (aliquibus) “the hidden parts of the universal law” (universae legis recessus),107 but he also performs the revelatory function, because he reveals the “treasures of truth”108 to those who are united with the Head of the body. Our theologian makes a distinction between those who have the Spirit and those who are without the Spirit. Those who do “not have the Holy Spirit” LR IV, 14–5: “Quam ob rem Dei gratia in auxilium postulata elaborandum nobis est.” LR IV, 17–8. 102 See LR II, 114–7. 103 Ulrich H.J. Körtner, Der inspirierte Leser: Zentrale Aspekte biblischer Hermeneutik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 16. 104 Ibid., 60: “Im Akt des Lesens gerät der Leser in den Text hinein, um ihn zu vervollständigen und zugleich als Subjekt neu konstituiert zu werden.” 105 Ibid., 60: “Daß der von den biblischen Texten implizierte Leser ein vom Geist Gottes inspirierter Leser ist. Der Sinn der biblischen Texte konstituiert sich neu in solchen Akten des Lesens, in welchen ihr Leser sich selbst in einer Weise neu verstehen lernt, welche die Sprache der christlichen Tradition als Glauben bezeichnet.” 106 See Bright, The Book of Rules, 141. 107 LR Prol.; EA III, 22–5. 108 LR Prol.; EA III, 5610–11. 100 101

5. Faith and Reason as a Response to God’s Word

245

(Rom 8:9) do not belong to Christ.109 Their rebellion “grieves the Holy Spirit” (Isa 63:10),110 they “always resist” (Acts 7:51) his inspirations,111 and therefore they are “deserted” by him and become the dwelling place of unclean spirits (Isa 14:22–27).112 To them the “treasures of truth” hidden in the Scriptures remain invisible. As we have said earlier, in a member of Christ’s body there is the profound duality and constant tension between believer and unbeliever. These two realities constitute the human being, but it depends on the disposition of the human will which reality becomes dominant. The Spirit does not wait for a reader of complete purity in order to inspire him or her to explore the divine truths of Scripture, but provides him or her with necessary means, that is, faith and reason. The Spirit helps to unite human and divine wisdom. The key to divine inspiration is found in the mystical rules, which are pneumatological principles at the disposal of everyone.113 For Tyconius, there is no proper interpretation of Scripture without the grace of the Spirit, which means that the divine inspiration of the reader is necessary. The reader must learn to interpret it not in human, but scriptural terms, that is, spiritually listening to the “instructions of the Spirit” (magisterio Spiritus Sancti)114 who speaks about the spiritual mysteries of evil and good. The Spirit’s desire is to eloquently reveal to each individual, and to the church in general, the present bipartite condition of the reality and its future unity. Jean-Marc Vercruysse, commenting on the possible ways of the Holy Spirit’s expressions, notes that “the divine inspiration endows Scripture with a permanent relevance and induces one to always find a meaning that would be worthy of God and salutary to humankind.”115 Tyconius’ desire was to reconcile all Christians through an accurate interpretation of Scripture, free from any private or sectarian interest. The superficial and partisan interpretations of Scripture were one of the main causes of division in fourth-century Africa. The African theologian insists on the conversion of one’s mind through a rational and faith-motivated reading of the Bible,116 which leads to the discovery of spiritual wisdom.

Cf. LR III, 20.21–2. Cf. LR III, 88–13. 111 Cf. LR III, 293. 112 Cf. LR IV, 19.211–12. 113 See Bright, The Book of Rules, 133. 114 LR IV, 17. 115 Jean-Marc Vercruysse, “Tyconius’ hermeneutics,” in Toom, Patristic Theories, 24. 116 See Aline Canellis, “Jerome’s hermeneutics. How to exegete the Bible?” in Toom, Patristic Theories, 40. 109 110

246

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

6. Process of Conversion Towards the Truth The human being has a natural tendency towards transcendence and is capable of putting him/herself in the movement of conversion in order to reach the Supreme Good, Truth, and Beauty. This process of becoming what one truly is supposed to be in God’s design is disturbed and challenged by mechanisms operated by the “mystery of evil” (2 Thess 2:7a), which oppose God and attempt to introduce humans to the realms of falsity and corruptibility. In Tyconius’ writings we notice a constant tension between truth and falsity – between the reality of Christ and the reality of the devil. Humans’ drama is to be in the midst of this conflict (cf. 2 Thess 2:7c), because they discover, not only outside of themselves, but above all, within themselves true and false parts – divine and diabolic contradictions. As we have noted previously, this human drama can become a blessing for humans if they turn the potentiality of their will toward the Truth where they find wisdom that will guide them through the perversity of evil towards good. Otherwise, it will become their curse, because humans thrown to the power of evil forces do not have a chance of winning on their own. Our reading of Tyconius would even suggest that the conversion toward Truth is actually a conversion toward Wisdom. Truth is not just a dogmatic or theological doctrine, but behind it is the Person of Christ who reveals himself in the wisdom of Scripture. This is the wisdom which comes from God through the Holy Spirit, that is, Christ himself who invites people to participate in his divine wisdom.117 The Truth is the expression of the Eternal Wisdom, which has its receivers, who by accepting it, live in the Truth and move towards complete immersion in the Truth. Let us recall the important words of Tyconius from the Prologue of the Liber Regularum: “For there are certain mystical rules which hold the secrets of the whole law and make visible the treasures of the truth which to some are invisible.”118 The “treasures of the truth” are the mysteries of Christ that the Spirit reveals through the Scriptures to good brothers and sisters. In this sense, conversion means embracing the wisdom that comes from Scripture and manifests itself as the Truth, that is, Jesus Christ who is at the core of Scripture. Tyconius emphasises that “we are speaking according to the mysteries of heavenly wisdom by the instruction of the Holy Spirit, who, 117 The biblical concept of “wisdom” can be defined in many various ways due to the numerous Hebrew and Greek terms that describe it, along with a large number of additional concepts in close syntactical relationship with these terms. In our case we speak about Jesus as the embodiment of divine wisdom (cf. Matt 11:2–4). In Matthew 11:25–27 (par. Luke 10:21–22) Jesus reveals the unique character of his filial relationship with God, and teaches that he is the revealer of God’s wisdom to those who are prepared to accept it. Paul calls Jesus the “wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24.30) and recognises in the message of the Gospel “God’s wisdom” (1 Cor 2:7). See Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Wisdom,” in NDBT, 843. 845–46. 118 LR, Prol.3.1’–2’.

6. Process of Conversion Towards the Truth

247

since the prize of truth should constitute the faith, narrated mysteries.”119 That is why we find it reasonable to define this process as sapiential conversion towards the Truth, which is another name for mystical conversion toward the Good as previously discussed. The evil brothers and sisters reject the sapiential conversion and so live in falsity behind what is diabolic silliness and absurdity.120 Tyconius warns them that their persistence in evil and corrupted knowledge leads them to foolishness and the belief that by the “application of feigned wisdom falsehood was concealed in the truth”121 (cf. 2 Thess 2:12). In the fifth rule, On Times, Tyconius encourages all who still remain under the slavery of falsity to go through Christ – the “true door” (per ianuam veram)122 into the “spiritual world” where the Spirit vivifies and unites all to Christ.123 Whoever recognises the voice of wisdom in the Scriptures, that is, the voice of Christ, and acts in accordance with this spiritual wisdom, begins to live in a coherent way and converts himself into the Supreme Truth. The sapiential conversion produces positive fruits like a life of truth and integrity, in contrast to evil brothers or sisters who, by remaining in foolishness, live in wickedness and confusion. The sapiential conversion, therefore, consists of the recognition and acceptance of the “treasures of the truth” in order to live a coherent life. The wise part of the church that lives in truth and strives for the Truth is characterised by Tyconius in feminine terms like “bride,” “sister” (Song 5:1) or “a holy virgin” (2 Cor 11:2), in contrast to the “Man of sin” (2 Thess 2:3c)124 who represents the foolish part of the church that lives in falsehood. Wisdom is like a beautiful lady that stands in opposition to the foolishness of an ugly man. These two spiritual realities are found in each member of the church, which is why conversion is a dynamic process that requires various stages. One part of human beings allows them to go forward, and the other one struggles to discourage them from making efforts to progress. Good members of the church are in a constant spiritual search for truth that makes them good and beautiful, but evil members of the church are in their false convictions and become more evil and ugly. Tyconius presents the search for the mystery of truth as a difficult task.125 The truth is hidden and guarded by the mystical rules, but it is prepared for humans and it is within the purview of human beings.126 Tyconius teaches that those who discover the “light of truth,” that is, Christ, become wise like Daniel and the “three young men … who confounded the king and all his 119 LR IV, 16–8: “loquimur secundum mysteria caelestis sapientiae magisterio Spiritus Sancti, qui cum veritatis pretium fidem constitueret mysteriis narravit.” 120 Cf. EA I, 2827–28. 121 LR, VII, 17.119–21. See also EA , VI, 53. 122 LR, V, 7.313. 123 Cf. LR, V, 6.715–16. 124 Cf. LR I, 11.19–11. 125 See LR VI, 215–17. 126 See EA I, 1744.

248

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

kingdom with their gods by declaring that there is one Lord.” With Christ, the Wisdom of God, the good brothers and sisters “break apart … the external and internal darkness of Babylon,”127 that is, the falsehood of the kingdom of the devil. The bipartition of the human nature, its complexity but also its potential for constant improvement, is an opportunity given to people by God. Tyconius, being aware that each human’s time is limited, urges Christians not to waste their temporality, for which they are responsible, and to invest all their energy in the spiritual battle on the side of Christ. This is the eschatological temporality that is divided into present and future moments – the “now” of the mysterium facinoris (2 Thess 2:7a) and the “then” after the final discessio (2 Thess 2:3b).

7. Bipartition of the Eschatological Temporality As we have seen above, the human being is a dynamic entity capable of orienting all his or her capacities and acts of life towards eschatological unity and harmony. That happens within the span of time, which is obviously limited and programmed to end. It is not our aim to reflect on the notion of time and temporality, but it is necessary for a better understanding of the complexity of Tyconius’ eschatology.128 With this intention, we would define time as an absLR VII, 10.218–21.1–2. For the sake of this systematic study, we use here the modern term ‘eschatology.’ Jörg Frey in his article “New Testament Eschatology – an Introduction: Classical Issues, Disputed Themes, and Current Perspectives,” in Eschatology of the New Testament and Some Related Documents, ed. Jan G. Van Der Watt, WUNT 2:315 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011): 3–32 presents the history of this term which was coined in the seventeenth century within classical Lutheran dogmatics. He indicates that the concept of ‘eschatology’ was used for the first time by Phillip Heinrich Friedlieb in the title of the fifth part of his dogmatics: Eschatologia seu Florilegium theologicum exhibens locorum de morte, resurrectione mortuorum, extreme iudicio, consummation seculi, inferno seu morte aeterna et denique vita aeterna published in 1644. The title actually serves as a first definition of the term: it is about death, the resurrection of the dead, the last judgment, the end or dissolution of the world, about hell or eternal death and, finally, about eternal life. Some German theologians, like Karl Barth or Rudolf Bultmann used the term to express timeless realities or the ultimate perspective on human existence in the present. Distinguishing eschatology from apocalypticism, they defined the term as a reference to what is beyond or transcends history in a strong relation to the present realities. Frey notices that “due to these terminological changes, theologians are now used to distinguish between a ‘future-oriented’ and a ‘present-oriented’ type of eschatology, i.e. between an expectation of imminent or even more remote acts or dispensations and, on the other hand, the conviction that the things originally expected are now at hand or even fulfilled.” See esp. pp. 6–7. A peculiar concept of eschatology is very clearly present in Tyconius’ works. In ch. 3 we have indicated his specific eschatological ‘time-table’ composed of: the biblical prophecies, their fulfilment in the presence of the bipartite church, the separation within the church, the Revelation of the Man of sin, the final persecution, the advent 127 128

7. Bipartition of the Eschatological Temporality

249

tract entity that obeys the dynamism of reason, mathematics, physics, or philosophy or other sciences that attempt to reflect on it. Temporality, instead is for us a reality that emerges from time, what we would call the incarnation of time in a specific space. It is the same formal distinction that we find between history and historicity, that is, a historical event is actualised thanks to historicity in the present, without losing the density of the original truth of the event. Logically, it means that temporality, as a quality of time, is in connection with space. It is a lived, real, and experiential part of time that needs an historical agent. Our way of defining temporality aligns with Lonergan who states: “because there is human development there is temporality – historicity, as it is called, of human living – and because that development occurs principally in the field of meaning, the development of man is principally the development of meaning.”129 Because there is temporality, time can be measured in temporal categories, such as, past, present, and future. In other words, between time and temporality there is a polar tension or a unitary difference guaranteed by the temporality of the human person living in time, or by the temporality of the space of the church acting in time. If time is the subject of philosophical reflection, then we can think that temporality as the concrete expression of time should be considered by theology, even more by Christian theology, which is based on the fact of God’s incarnation in history on behalf of historical beings. In Tyconius’ thought, we suggest that it is temporality that serves as a unit which embraces different eschatological moments. We can, therefore, distinguish in his temporal system two bipartitions – the first includes the prophetic biblical message of the past and the present time of the church in which it is fulfilled, and the second consists of the present time of the church and her future definitive realisation.130 The present time of the church is the point of arrival for the first bipartition and the point of departure for the second bipartition. Tyconius does not support the eschatology which looks only into the future and ultimate things, as if, as Moltmann notes, “these end events were to break into this world from somewhere beyond history, and to put an end to the history in which all things here live and move.”131 The African theologian clearly advances eschatological pedagogy, the continuity and graduality in which each period has its intrinsic particularity, but is connected chronologically with other stages. All the days of human history cannot be just simply separated from of the Lord, and the final judgment. In this way he underlines a pedagogical character of his eschatology which binds together past, present and future aspects of the church’s situation. 129 Bernard J.F. Lonergan, “Time and Meaning,” in Philosophical and Theological Papers 1958–1964, eds. Robert C. Croken, Frederick E. Crowe, and Robert M. Doran, CWL 6 (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1996), 109. 130 See I, 2741. 131 Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope. On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology, trans. James W. Leitch (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 15 (orig. pub. Theologie der Hoffnung [München: Kaiser, 1965]).

250

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

the end events, but rather have to have a critical significance that nourishes the Christian hope. For Tyconius, the moment of the future separation (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) in the second bipartition is the gate that opens the final eschatological phase, but eschatology embraces the entire time of the church, her looking and moving forward and “therefore also revolutionizing and transforming the present.”132 The pedagogical eschatology presented by Tyconius is animated by the Holy Spirit who, though being hidden, acts as a divine παιδαγωγός (pedagogue) who helps believers to make sense of their lives in history. He is the one who accompanies, but also the one who directs human life towards the ultimate Presence.133 7.1 The Present and Future of the Church For Tyconius, the present time of the church is the most important spiritual reality whose duration he describes as encompassing the time of the Lord’s passion until his Second Coming.134 It is the time of the Spirit who, through Scripture, first reveals the present facts concerning the homo peccati (2 Thess 2:3c) and the mysterium facinoris (2 Thess 2:7a) in the church, and then the future issues concerning the final discessio (2 Thess 2:3b) and persecution. Paradoxically, Tyconius, on the one hand, greatly emphasises the inner battle that takes place in the church and in the heart of believers, but on the other hand, describes the present time of the church as a period of peace. Interpreting it in our modern terms we can say that, for him, eschatology is not just a part of Christian doctrine, but Christianity itself is eschatological and experiences in various ways the nunc (now) and tunc (then) of its linear history, in which the divine economy is situated.135 In other words, Tyconius’ Christian eschatology is a pedagogy that acts in tension between hic et nunc and nunc et tunc. The present peace of the church, mixed with her continuous battle, is analogous to the eternal peace that comes after the future separation (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b), which opens the final stage of the persecution. Ibid., 16. Dalferth, in his book Trascendenza e mondo secolare, examines the distinction of the Christian faith which is concerned with God’s presence in all areas of life. The Christian life, being oriented towards this ultimate presence, that is, antecedent transcendence in the immanence of a secular world, leaves the alternative between religious and non-religious life behind. 134 Fredriksen Landes, in her article “Tyconius and the End of the World,” indicates that Tyconius’ eschatological expectations seem “to be based on three passages in the Liber Regularum: (1) the calculations concerning the period of 350 years; (2) the reference to II Thessalonians 2, 3ff; and (3) the interpretation of Donatist persecution in light of the sufferings of the righteous foretold in apocalyptic texts,” (60–61). Tyconius believed that the church’s struggle which shall last for three and a half days – that is, 350 years – after the Crucifixion shall end sometime within his lifetime and open the way for the Lord’s Second Coming. His view of the fast-approaching End inflamed his pastoral zeal. 135 See Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 16–17. 132 133

7. Bipartition of the Eschatological Temporality

251

This logic of Tyconius should be understood in light of Rule six mentioned above, in which he explains his concept of recapitulation. Let us just recall briefly what he means by this term. First of all, Tyconius does not write about the rhetorical rules of human speech, but rather the mystical rules of the speech of the Spirit, and he considers the rule of recapitulation as the most mystical.136 The Spirit surpasses the boundaries and limits of time and enables the church to see biblical prophecy, describing the present and the future of the church, as a continuation. The eschatological references to time found in the Scriptures also have reference to the present time,137 and similarities between the biblical events, whether past or future, to present events.138 In other words, the past biblical stories and, more idiosyncratically, the future eschatological prophecies, could function as types for events in the present – present antitypes are interpreted by historical types. Sometimes, Tyconius observes, ecclesiological recapitulation occurs when one thing is stated in Scripture, but another is meant to be understood by the church or about the church.139 Hence, recapitulation, for Tyconius, is describing the same realities under different forms.140 This can only be accomplished because of the accompanying presence of the Holy Spirit who exists in the past, in the present and in the future. The Spirit, as an active agent of recapitulation acts in history – he inspires the past, assists the present and orients toward the future. He is the guarantee of continuity.141 Tyconius, therefore, believes that when interpreting the Scriptures, as he explains in the fifth rule On Times, one should not interpret the time sequence too strictly, because it was not intended as such by inspired authors. The temporal quantity in Scripture often has mystical significance and speaks about the whole time of the church in different figures.142 The African exegete does not refer to an eschatological, but rather an historical future in terms of biblical narrative, which could refer to the past, the present, or the future from his temporal perspective.143 Tyconius’ interpretation of the “thousand year reign” of saints of Rev 20, for example, refers to the “now” of the church.144 For him, the “first resurrection” of the saints occurs not on some future Sabbath, but it has already begun in baptism and spreads throughout the whole time of the church – from the passion of Christ to the outbreak of the final persecution.145 Tyconius is among the first to reject See LR VI, 12–5. See LR VI, 26–15.1–4. 138 See LR VI, 3.23–6; EA IV, 122–4.22–26; V, 4357–59. 139 See LR VI, 4.17–8. 140 See EA II, 589–10; IV, 11–2. 141 See EA II, 212–6. 142 See EA II, 2.15–6. 143 See EA IV, 314–22; Kenneth B. Steinhauser, “Recapitulatio in Tyconius and Augustine,” AugStud 15 (1984): 3. 144 Cf. LR VI, 8.27–9.1–11. 145 See LR V, 3.115–18.1–6; EA VII, 201–8; 222–6; 232–7. 136 137

252

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

chiliasm.146 Bright observes that the “bipartite church is experiencing both the ‘thousand year reign of the saints’ in baptism, ‘now,’ but it is equally experiencing the horrors of the end-times, ‘now,’ in the reign of Antichrist in the midst of the church through rampant sin and hypocrisy. The ‘times’ of tribulation have already begun ‘spiritually’.”147 In the Expositio Apocalypseos, Tyconius stresses that the Spirit mixes the times: “now as the present, now as the future … for he never separates the present time from the last, when ‘spiritual wickedness’ will be revealed.”148 In other words, the tribulations of the last persecution are continually recapitulated in the present reality of the church. Despite his anti-chiliastic interpretation of Revelation, Tyconius expected the imminent Second Coming of Christ, but all of his attention was focused on the present situation of the church. Frederiksen Landes states that “Tyconius’ citations of eschatological passages in Scripture should not necessarily be taken as prima facie evidence of a personal enthusiasm. Exegetically, he has them serve quite a different end, and in so doing very often exorcises their original eschatological content.”149 In the old eschatological images or categories like the “Man of sin” (2 Thess 2:3c), persecution, double resurrection of millenarism, Tyconius sees a symbolic description of the present. Tyconius’ “exegetical revolution” rests on his de-eschatologizing both political events and apocalyptic texts.150 Tyconius wants to invite Christians into a deeper awareness of the past, which nourishes the present, and the present being fascinated by the future, gives orientation to the future. The awareness regarding the past and the future can only be done in the present time, which is like a vortex that unites the past, which is no more, and the future, which is not yet. In this way, the African theologian shows that the biblical prophecies speak about the bipartition of the church. This bipartition is mysteriously present in the church and the visible bipartition will take place at the moment of separation (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b), which introduces the good into eternal unity and harmony and the wicked into eternal and unrepairable bipartition. According to Tyconius, the goal of the Scriptures’ interpretation is not searching for the ‘signs of the end of times’ “but rather for the signs of what makes one united or separated from Christ now. This separation, now a hidden, ‘spiritual’ reality, is what will be manifest to all at the end-time.”151 Tyconius’ eschatology, therefore, does not speak of the future as See Dulaey, “L’Apocalypse. Augustin et Tyconius,” in Saint Augustin et la Bible, 369–86. 147 Bright, “Augustine and the Thousand Year Reign of Saints,” 451. 148 EA III, 733–4.8–9. See also VII, 3112–15. 149 Fredriksen Landes, “Tyconius and the End of the World,” 66. 150 See Yves Christe, “Tradition littéraires et iconographiques dans l’interprétation des images apocalyptiques,” in L’Apocalypse de Jean: Traditions exégétiques et iconoraphiques IIIe-XIIIe siècles: actes du Colloque de la Fondation Hardt, 29 février–3 mars, ed. Yves Christe (Genève: Droz, 1979), 111. 151 Bright, The Book of Rules, 11 146

7. Bipartition of the Eschatological Temporality

253

such, but announces that future sets out from a definite reality in history that takes place in the present. It is based on the hope of the church which leads her to see the existing reality in movement towards the promised transformation. It is the same hope that Christians must witness with humility, respect and awareness: “Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence. Keep your conscience clear” (1 Pet 3:15–16). 7.2 Sacred and Profane Temporality Human beings do not have any chance to influence or manipulate time, understood as an ordered totality of concrete durations. It is not so in the case of temporality, which, as we have said earlier, is a concrete and dynamic part of time managed by human decisions and attitudes. This clear distinction allows us to believe that in Tyconius we can notice two kinds of temporality: sacred and profane. By opening himself to the reality of God, the human being is able to make his or her temporality sacred, and by embracing the reality of the devil, is also able to make it profane. In ancient Rome, sacrum referred to everything what belonged to the gods, ritual cults and their location, especially the temple. The opposing term profanum described what does not belong to the temple, what is found in front of the temple precinct.152 The terms were linked to quite distinct locations, but in our understanding of Tyconius they can also refer to the temporal reality of the members of the church, describing basically two existential modes of their engagement with the present time. In this study we propose, therefore, a bipartite model of human temporality in which both sacred and profane aspects encounter each other. Mircea Eliade, a Romanian-American historian of religion and philosopher, notes that “the polarity sacred – profane is often expressed as an opposition between real and unreal or pseudo-real.”153 The human being is capable of sanctifying his or her own time, because of hierophany, that is, a sacred manifestation of God in the incarnation of Jesus Christ.154 The entrance of the timeless God into human time gives each person potential to construct non-illusory but sacred temporality and gradually unite with the Absolute. René Latourelle stresses that Revelation has a progressive nature and “man does not suddenly possess his perfection … but is subjected to the conditions of corporeity: he 152 See Carsten Colpe, “The Sacred and the Profane,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd ed., eds. Lindsay Jones et al., vol. 12 (New York: Thomson Gale, 2005), 7964. 153 Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane. The Nature of Religion. The significance of religious myth, symbolism, and ritual within life and culture, trans. Willard R. Trask (New York: Brace & World, 1963), 12–13. This work was first published in German as Das Heilige und Das Profane (1957) as a response to and in many ways a progression from Rudolf Otto’s Das Heilige (The Idea of the Holy). 154 See ibid., 11.

254

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

develops gradually in space and time.”155 The bipartite body of the church and the bipartite nature of the human being immersed in the bipartite temporality, are in constant movement and development. The complexity of the bodily condition is necessary and can be sanctified by Christ’s incarnation which is transhistorical – it unites the body of the church into the eternal presence of God. Ordinary human activity can become “a sacrament, that is, a communion with the sacred.”156 As we remember, for Tyconius, the incarnation continually takes place in the true church, in which believers assume love, faith and hope as the ordinary style of life. In this way, their temporal existence becomes mystic, that is, in harmony with the will of the Spirit. The persons who authentically practice love, faith, and hope do not live just in the historical present, but according to Tyconius’ way of thinking, their union with the Head of the body makes their temporality homologous with eternity. These virtues are timeless acts which somehow take human beings out of time and make them wholly ‘present’157 in the absolute presence of God. This trans-human experience of temporality, as we suggest in this study, points to the mysterious union that exists between the present and the future aspects of humans’ or the church’s eschatological reality. Both the good part of the church and of the human being thirst for the real which is found in union with God. This is as much as to say that the believers become a contemporary of God in the measure in which they re-actualise the union with the Head of the body. As Moltmann notes, the believer is endowed with the capacity to enter an eternal present of God and, hence, to be entirely present, that is, to be “in the supreme sense contemporaneous with himself and one with himself.”158 We can even speak about the mysticism of being which an authentic believer is able to assume. The sanctification of temporality is possible in the church and in the heart of believers due to the activity of the Spirit, who, as we have already noticed, unites and surpasses different times. A completely opposing reality occurs in the evil part of the church or the human being who, being spiritually separated from Christ the source of sanctification, wastes the gift of time, making his or her temporality profane. The mode of being of this human part makes his or her efforts illusionary and unproductive, because it roots itself in the Antichrist who is the source of desecration and the negation of incarnation. The profane temporality appears to be a constant stagnation in the present without perceiving the meaningfulness of time and its salvific aspect.

155 René Latourelle, Teologia scienza della salvezza, trans. V. Pagani (Assisi: Cittadella, 2005), 23 (orig. pub. Théologie Science du Salut [Bruges: Desclée; Montréal: Les éd. Bellarmin, 1968]). 156 Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, 14. 157 See Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 30. 158 Ibid., 29.

8. Hope as the Response to Desperateness

255

8. Hope as the Response to Desperateness Hope is a third fundamental Christian attitude, based not on some abstract ideas, but on the promises of God who is the God of the future and offers the future to those who decide to belong to him. Tyconius continuously highlights the not-yet of the present reality, both a warning for evildoers and victory for the good brothers and sisters. We have to notice, that the hopeful human beings do not remain centred on themselves, but open their horizons to the mystery of Christ, and gradually come out of themselves in order to enter into the future with Christ. This promise of the life in God is accepted by the means of hope that is willing to suffer the present injustice. Through hope, the human being is already connected with the new reality, which, if accepted with faith and freedom, changes his or her present reality. We can even think that hope is a bond between time and temporality. It is placed not only in the future, but is already grounded in the past prophetic announcements and actualised in humans at the present. Hope begins in the past, nourishes the present and orients toward the future. Recapitulation in Tyconius is a dynamism guaranteed by hope. God, who is always oriented towards the future, invites human beings to enter into this process. God’s future orientation transcends the realities of the past and present. The hope born from faith in God creates the real future possibility; it opens a new process of accepting something that does not yet exist in humanity. This is not a return to something that already exists, but it is an expectation of the new reality which opens human beings up to the understanding of the meaning of the present. The time between the present of the church and its future allows each person to exercise his or her freedom of believing or disbelieving. If people accept in hope what God has promised, their present reality changes and works in their favour. Hope in God’s promises requires not only the response of human freedom to expect something, but rather the relationship with the one who is the reason of hope. Hope is able to transcend the past prophetic message and the present reality of the church. The final advent of Christ concludes history and only Christ is capable of making sense of human existence in history. 8.1 The Sin of Hopelessness The German philosopher Josef Pieper, in his treatise Über die Hoffnung, distinguishes two forms of hopelessness: praesumptio (presumption) and desperatio (despair). These are two aspects which touch people’s present; they are existential categories that problematise the present and hinder the horizon of the future. Both are forms of the premature anticipation – the former, of what we hope for from God, and the latter, of the non-fulfilment of what we hope for from God. These two kinds of hopelessness are examples of rebellion against

256

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

the patience that human beings should invest in God’s promises.159 This proudful attitude closes people off from knowing the God of hope and from participating in the gift of salvation. We also find specific forms of these two types of hopelessness in the attitude of the members of Christ’s body. The pride of those who constitute the “Man of sin” (2 Thess 2:3c) consists in the desire to be like God (cf. 2 Thess 2:4b).160 Arrogantly transgressing the limits of their own existence, they presume that they can act outside the confines of God’s government. In this way the evil brothers and sisters, despising divine justice, build the church founded on their own power and on the lies of the devil, professing that “they are gods and children of God.”161 Such an inner disorder makes human beings incapable of being what God requires from them, because, denying God, they reject the potential with which God has endowed them. If people separate from God and refuse to hope in him, they naturally begin to grow in hopelessness. In evil brothers and sisters, who are spiritually separated from Jesus, false hopes are born because they have placed themselves in the devil who, actually, does not have any ontological right to hope. The devil’s desire to place himself on the same level as God has generated in him a depersonalising alienation – the state of perdition into which he seeks to draw humans as well (cf. 2  Thess 2:3c.10b). If people respond to the devil’s temptation, they deepen the distance from themselves, from others, and from God. Tyconius notices in his last rule that the devil does not expect to reign above God, “for he does not hope that by resisting he would be able to ascend to heaven, who, lest he be cast down, was not strong enough to resist. Much more is a man unable to hope for these things.”162 In union with the adversary of Christ, human expectations end as illusions. This union of wills between the devil and his followers results in the meaninglessness of life and future prospects. The devil, destroying human hope and convincing people that they are not loved by God, already imposes on them the infernal condition of the inability to love.163 The devil knows that he does not have any future, and he manipulates the members of his body by extinguishing in them the possibility of growth in hope. In this way, human beings detach their present from the future fulfilment of hope, and attach themselves to the present illusory happiness. The danger that awaits the good brothers and sisters is the sin of despair. This can happen when human beings do not want to accept that the bipartite situation is an essential part of their life. Retaining in themselves (katechein cf. 2 Thess 2:6a.7b) the mysterium facinoris (2 Thess 2:7a), they suffer and are tempted to succumb to the evil one who lies to them that this state is meaningSee Josef Pieper, Über die Hoffnung (München: Kösel, 1949), 51. See EA I, 4113–18; IV, 296–8. 161 EA IV, 2614–15. 162 LR VII, 3.120–23. 163 See Castaldini, Dolore del mondo, 55–56. 159 160

8. Hope as the Response to Desperateness

257

less and will not be terminated. If human beings do not suffer in union with the Head of the body, then they preclude themselves from the authentic hope that passes through “the inquieted of the world.”164 But it is, in fact, this inner divisiveness that nourishes their hope for the final unity. If people cease to hope, because they expect an inner integrity before the eschatological separation (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b), then they fall into despair and offend the God of hope as the evil brothers and sisters do by their presumption. The persecution and evil in the church make it very painful to attend to the Lord’s visible presence. The clear contrast between the present situation and the final situation is the source of constant tension that can lead to despair. It is precisely in this painful experience of bipartition that the “eschatological sonship” that brings people back “to the lost Imago Dei”165 is realised. In order to avoid the tragedy of desperation, the human being has to learn that God is present in his groaning. The members of the church are called to await the kairós, God’s time, but embracing the chrónos, the time filled with painful experience. In his second Encyclical Spe Salvi (Saved by Hope), Benedict XVI unfolds the spiritual danger that arises at the moment when a human being attempts to find an easier way than patiently bearing the present situation in hope: We can try to limit suffering, to fight against it, but we cannot eliminate it. It is when we attempt to avoid suffering by withdrawing from anything that might involve hurt, when we try to spare ourselves the effort and pain of pursuing truth, love, and goodness, that we drift into a life of emptiness, in which there may be almost no pain, but the dark sensation of meaninglessness and abandonment is all the greater. It is not by sidestepping or fleeing from suffering that we are healed, but rather by our capacity for accepting it, maturing through it and finding meaning through union with Christ, who suffered with infinite love.166

It is precisely the virtue of hope that prevents the good brothers and sisters from falling into despair. The temptation to make predictions about God’s future escapes human logic, because it is not a human task. The human being is called to be active in the process of sanctifying his or her own temporality and to persevere in patient endurance. Walter Kasper notices that “only hope in God’s eschatological future makes intra-historical plans for the future possible … It is not a comforting hope; it is an encouraging hope.”167

Käsemann, Prospettive paoline, 102. Ibid., 178. 166 “Studium est in nobis dolores arcendi eisque adversandi, non vero de mundo eos auferendi. Etenim ubi homines, dolores vitare cupientes, ab omnibus quae dolores resipere possent se subtrahere contendunt, ubi labori ac dolori veritatis, amoris et boni parcere cupiunt, in vitam vacuam prolabuntur, in qua forsitan nihil est doloris, sed tantum privatio sensus et solitudo obscurius percipiuntur. Nec remotio tribulationis, nec fuga doloris hominem sanant, sed potestas tribulationem admittendi et in ea maturandi, in ea sensum inveniendi cum Christo per coniunctionem, qui immenso amore passus est,” § 37 in AAS 99 (2007), 1014–15. 167 Walter Kasper, Introduzione alla fede, trans. R. Gibellini (Brescia: Queriniana, 1973), 49 (orig. pub. Einführung in den Glauben [Mainz: Matthias Grünewald, 1972]). 164 165

258

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

8.2 The Temporality as the Mediator of the Pedagogical Eschatology The eschatological future events indicated by Tyconius are: the final separation of the good and evil brothers (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b), the visible Revelation of the “Man of sin” (2 Thess 2:3c), the ultimate persecution within the church, that is, the manifestation of the “mystery of evil” (2 Thess 2:7a), and Christ’s victorious coming. We cannot, however, forget that he considers them not as events breaking into the world from somewhere beyond history. They have already been happening invisibly in the present time of the church. In this way, the current situation in the body of Christ becomes an important source of hope. The African theologian shapes the forward looking and forward moving image of the Christian life. It is true that an authentic believer suffers by being immersed in the confusing bipartite reality of the church, but this experience makes his or her longing for the final unity and harmony stronger. This pedagogical character of Tyconius’ eschatology is overwhelming in his writings and testifies to how deeply he understood the meaning of Christianity, which basically is hope. Christ is present in the church, where human beings wait in hope for transformation. The eschatological expectations, therefore, are not the far-removed end that must be achieved, but are already spiritually present and become the starting point for the authentic Christian life. Tyconius seems to bind the praesentia Christi with the adventus Christi. Moltmann accurately describes the corelation between the present and future time in Christianity by saying that “Christian eschatology does not speak of the future as such. It sets out from a definite reality in history and announces the future of that reality, its future possibilities and its power over the future.”168 Hence, the authentic believer enters into the process of discovering the meaning of bipartition and learns to move properly in the paths of good and evil, both present and future. The understanding of Tyconius’ motif of separation (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) in this study leads us to believe that his eschatological pedagogy calls for the sanctification of temporality, that is, the spiritual immersion and living in the already existing mysteries of Christ. This attitude awakens hope for the participation in the eschatological future of the Christ event, in everything that is hidden and prepared in him. Human beings, as we have said, experience both sacredness and profanity in their decisions and attitudes. They are in constant conflict between hope and despair. This tension between the present and the future puts human beings into the existential crisis of dispersion, but at the same time awakens in them hope, that is, a hidden desire for the final unity. The temporality that has been given to humans becomes an instrument through which they can connect their own present with the future of Christ. It is not an easy task when one has to constantly struggle and choose between contradicting realities. One knows that it is impossible to embrace both of them, though at present, the human being is trapped in this painful relationship. Until the final 168

Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 17.

8. Hope as the Response to Desperateness

259

and visible separation (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b), believers learn to hope, because they believe in Christ. It is precisely faith that preserves them from despair, which suffocates the unbelievers. For Tyconius, as we have already learned, there is no pure human being – a good brother or sister who does not have to struggle with evil. Neither the church nor the human being is free from bipartition. That is why, as we argue in this study, there is a continuous dynamism in humanity, a forward movement in faith towards the hoped-for-transformation. Hope without faith in Christ would remain hanging in the air or it may just be an illusion. Those who hope in the midst of the eschatological contradictions and tensions will never be able to reconcile with evil, but will begin to contradict it. Their developing union with the Head of the body puts them in a deeper conflict with the evil that does not have a future. The believing hope does not allow an authentic Christian to accept the bipartite reality and, as Pieper notices, pushes him or her to live this period as status viatoris (state of being on the way).169 “The ‘not yet’ of the status viatoris,” explains Pieper, “includes both a negative and a positive element: the absence of fulfilment and the orientation towards fulfilment.”170 The hope helps to “face our present, [since] the present, even if it is arduous, can be lived and accepted if it leads toward a goal.”171 Tyconius’ texts point out that human temporality, either sacred or profane, is the mediator through which human beings begin to understand eternity. In the first case, the pain of bearing the bipartite tension is supported by hope, which reconciles whatever is disharmonious. Christ present in his church is the God of hope who will also be eternally present. He is the creator ex nihilo, and does not cheat people with empty promises, but makes them happy even in the midst of the present sorrows (cf. 2 Thess 2:7c). What is found beyond the doors of the final separation (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) is already possible to live in, spiritually, now in the church. It is the human being who makes his or her existential pain meaningful when he or she desires to go beyond the present experience. Those who live their temporality in a profane way do not have the pain of expectations, but rather a pain of meaninglessness born out of hopelessness. They profess a philosophical dictum ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing comes from nothing), because if they do not believe God and do not expect anything from him, they immerse themselves in eternal nothingness. The temporality based on living and believing in hope becomes eschatologically oriented when it transforms human thought and action. Such a process makes one aware that nothing can be united and perfectly harmonious until See Josef Pieper, “Über Verzweiflung,” in Werke in acht Bänden, ed. B. Wald, vol. 4 (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1996), 274–83. 170 Josef Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997), 93 (orig. pub. Lieben, Hoffen, Glauben [München: Kösel, 1986]). 171 Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi in AAS 99 (2007) § 1, 985: “nos praesentem possumus oppetere vitam: operosam quoque praesentem vitam quae geri et accipi potest, dummodo perducat in metam.” 169

260

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

it reaches the visible separation (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) when the novum ultimum (ultimate horizon) of hope will be fulfilled. The hope itself transforms temporality by forcing it to become productive in the field of love and faith. The human being experiences life’s contradictions, but “he comes ‘to himself’” in hope though “he is still future to ‘himself’ and is promised to himself …, for he has staked his future on the future of Christ. Thus, he comes into harmony with himself in spe, but into disharmony with himself in re.”172 Each person is a mystery to itself, but hidden in the mystery of God, and only in God can one partially discover who he or she is and wait in hope for what he or she will be. Each one of us is homo absconditus (the inscrutable human being) immersed in time, but heading forward with the hope for eternity. This is precisely what will take place according to Tyconius after the final separation (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b) – we enter into our transcendent destiny and at present, hope allows us to be already spiritually ahead of ourselves. This process of becoming what we are called to be must be placed in the world and, in Tyconius’ case, more specifically in the church, where the possibilities exist for newness, which are acquired by hope. Hope cannot be effective if not in the mixed reality where changes are possible. If the church were only a pure and holy reality, then hope would be useless. The sacred temporality of believers is therefore a constant disturbance to the profane temporality of unbelievers and vice versa. Temporality is the manner of human existence by which the state of being obtains its meaning or not. The human being who desacralizes his or her own temporality enters into the most radical spiritual indifferentism that rejects God.

9. Process of Conversion Towards the Beauty As we have seen in the previous chapter, Tyconius sees in the texts of the book of Revelation which speak about the opening of the sixth seal, the blowing of the sixth trumpet, and the pouring out of the sixth bowl, a description of the time of the final persecution. This painful experience will purify the church and prepare her for the eschatological Sabbath – a time of rest and unity signified by the seventh seal, trumpet and bowl. In this final trial the church must persevere in hope and, following her master, offer herself voluntarily in sacrifice.173 Then comes the final victory which is actually the manifestation of a reality present today in the mystery.174 On that day the church, being freed from the ugliness of the “Man of sin” (2 Thess 2:3c) and the “mystery of evil” (2 Thess 2:7a), will be a radiant and beautiful city as described in Rev 21:18. The good part of Christ’s body will experience complete fusion with its Head and will no longer Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 91. See EA IV, 94–6. 174 See EA VII, 3110–15. 172 173

9. Process of Conversion Towards the Beauty

261

be ugly and beautiful (fusca et decora),175 but only beautiful, visibly participating in the Eternal Beauty. At the present time, each individual member of the church must take the necessary steps for preserving and developing his or her hidden beauty and not allowing it to be affected by the ugliness of sin. Beauty is an attribute which must be embodied, for example, in a person, object, place, or idea. The human being pervaded by goodness and truth becomes beautiful, that is, becomes him/herself. Thomas Dubay observes that “truth, beauty and goodness have their being together” and it is “by truth we are put in touch with reality which we find is good for us and beautiful to behold. In our knowing, loving and delighting the gift of reality appears to us as something infinitely and in-exhaustively valuable and fascinating.”176 Each individual internally feels that the end of his or her existence is to enter into the eternal union with the Absolute Beauty, which is God and his reality. The manifestation of beauty takes place hic et nunc in historical time, but in the theological perspective, it is open to the fulness of beauty found in eternity. As Tyconius teaches us, the bipartite church and human being are not completely beautiful, but are in the process of becoming beautiful in the second, future, eschatological phase, that is, after the final separation (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b). In order to deepen this reflection, let us consider an analogy that we find in art. Art, as a product of people, manifests not only human skills, but says something about human beings themselves, about their own hidden beauty that strives for much greater Beauty. In this sense, the beauty that is expressed in art reminds us who we are and what is our final vocation. It is both a visible–material, but also an invisible–spiritual expression of human longing for ontological recovery, that is, becoming harmonious and integrated with oneself. The beauty of art can help us to rekindle in ourselves this inner longing, and although the ontological reintegration cannot be completed now before the final separation, art is an example of this proleptic experience. The present spiritual reality of beauty that we find in the church and in ourselves will be revealed in the future. We can speak about this human desire only if we consider ourselves as a bipartite entity, ones who at present have to wrestle with their inner distortion and uneasiness. The eschatological beauty is therefore the final harmony of human beings, their complete integration with themselves, because of their harmony with the beauty of God. The beauty becomes harmony if it is immersed in goodness and truth, in contrast to the ugliness that is actually a life without goodness, that is in evilness, and without truth, that is in falsity. If people at present keep immersing themselves in their ugly and negative dimension, which also exists and cannot be negated, then they will eventually reject the need for the Eternal Beauty. Cf. LR II, 104–5. Thomas Dubay, The evidential power of beauty: Science and theology meet (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), 23. 175 176

262

Chapter IV: Theological Insights from Tyconius’ Reception

At present, the members of the church as a living body have to engage in this spiritual battle with the hope of reaching the final separation (cf. 2 Thess 2:3b). Tyconius’ presentation of the eschatological situation of the human being, who has to choose between true or false beauty, makes us think of the problem of contemporary libertine atheism, described by Methol Ferré. He defines libertine atheism as “an atheistic form of freedom”177 that focuses on “consumption” and “capricious satisfaction” and which “formulates an organic system of rules internalised by the subject, a vision of the world coherent with the premises from which it is nourished.”178 Ferré speaks about the “consumer societies” that become more and more focused on “hedonism, sexist consumerism, the uncontrolled and incessant multiplication of pornography, eroticism and immediate pleasure,”179 in which “there is no spirit that animates the body,” but “the spirit is the spirit of the body.”180 One of the greatest Italian philosophers of the twentieth century, Augusto Del Noce, calls such a society opulent, that is, the society which believes it has everything, but in fact it is deficient in everything, because it does not have God.181 Such a society is composed of empty people who focus only on the hic et nunc without the desire to reach the transcendental reality. The situation of the church, described by our African theologian, is very similar to the ideas of the libertine atheism, which is a form of life without God, in which people create their own subjective rules, recognising as beauty something what is not nourished by the transcendental elements of goodness and truth, and therefore assimilates to the false beauty that does not bring authentic happiness. In the seventh rule, Tyconius quotes verses from Ezekiel 28 that speak about such false beauty: “I will bring stranger upon you … and they will draw out their swords against you and against the beauty of your learning, and they will deface your beauty to ruin” (v. 7)182 or “Your heart has been exalted in your beauty, your knowledge has been corrupted in your beauty” (v. 17).183 The body of the devil, as presented by Tyconius, is animated not by the Spirit of God, but by the spirit of the devil who, manipulating human freedom, convinces one to believe in false beauty. The concentration on illusionary beauty proposed by the devil is a kind of a hedonistic beauty that is closed in on itself, looks for egoistic and superficial pleasure and makes one blind to the transcendental reality. It is true that libertine atheism “perverts” beauty, because “it separates it from truth and from goodness, and therefore from justice”.184 This destructive process shows a very important truth, namely Ferré, El Papa & Filosofo, 127. Ibid.,129. 179 Ibid., 130. 180 Ibid., 130. 181 See Augusto Del Noce, Il problema politico dei cattolici (Rome: UIPC, 1967), 75–82. 182 LR, VII, 815–17. 183 LR, VII, 17.118–19. 184 Ferré, El Papa & Filosofo, 155–56. 177 178

9. Process of Conversion Towards the Beauty

263

that even in such a disfigured and false life there is the hidden necessity for beauty. Disunifying beauty, truth, and goodness leads to ontological injustice, that is, an inner division of human beings. Without God, an individual is unjust with him/herself and with others, lives in hypocrisy, considering beautiful what actually is ugly and, in this way, turns him/herself away from the real beauty. Such a life in illusionary beauty reduces personhood itself and leads him or her into emptiness, antagonism, and separation from others. One is just when he or she is aligned with his or her own identity and the received mission. Communion with God requires justice with oneself and with other members who are created for unity in the whole body. The evil brothers and sisters are in need of a radical conversion by orienting themselves toward the Eternal Beauty. The good brothers and sisters, as well, have to continue to strive for the inner harmony whose completeness can only be found in the final union with God. This process of conversion is not an intellectual activity but touches the most inner and intimate sphere of human life symbolised by heart. At the threshold of the Enlightenment, Blaise Pascal fought the libertine presumption, which postulated that human intellect is the sole space of knowledge and truth, neglecting the human heart as a sphere of real wisdom. Pascal believed that “the heart has its reasons that reason does not know”185 and that is why he saw the need to rediscover the unity of the human being. This unity begins to be spiritually recovered during the time of the church, in which the believer learns to embrace his difficult reality, guarding and developing goodness, truth and beauty – the signs of Christ’s presence in his life. Contemplating the beauty of Christ in his inner self, human beings recognise their own vocation and their own future in Christ. Finally, we should not forget that Tyconius himself is a witness to the elevated beauty that can be discovered in the language and composition of his works. His capacity to invent and transmit a sapiential language – the language of the Spirit – full of symbolism, typologies, metaphors, and mysticism gives him the right to be considered an artist of the Spirit. Only an artist is capable to operate in a language that touches both present and future dimensions of the same reality. The deep spirituality that can be sensed in Tyconius’ works suggests that he was not just a great exegete and theologian, but, above all, a true mystic – a person immersed in the logic of the Spirit for whom the Scriptures and the experience of the spiritual church, as he himself metaphorically says, are “pastures of spiritual mysteries.”186

185 Blaise Pascal, Pensieri e altri scritti su Pascal, ed. Gennaro Auletta (Alba: San Paolo Edizioni, 1996), 297, n. 6. 186 EA II, 562.

Conclusion The present study, which we now conclude, has focused on the relevance of the reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12 for Tyconius. From this concrete patrimony of the biblical and late ancient Christendom, we have attempted to understand its significance and its theological implications for the contemporary Christian life. It is not trivial to emphasise again that in this research the textual-literary reception in its dynamic character of mediation also has its historical-cognitive aspect. The textual reception as an historical mediation helps us to bridge the past and the present. In our case, it is a question of seeing connections, on the one hand, between 2 Thess 2:3–12 and Tyconius’ historical situation and, on the other hand, between Tyconius’ reception of the pericope and the present Christian life. Textual reception as a cognitive mediation helps us to recognise both Tyconius’ insights taken from 2 Thess 2:3–12 and their theological applicability for us today. In other words, as in the past, Tyconius has asked himself about the authenticity of the Christian church in his context, so also, we have done the same in our present context. From the African theologian we learn that such authenticity is only assured by the close unity to Christ – the Head of the body and the continuous exercise of charity towards all. The authenticity requires, from all members of Christ’s body, an ongoing conversion and firm hope in the eschatological fulfilment. Tyconius’ spiritual reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12 functions as an invitation to all Christians to become more aware of the existence of evil in order to participate in an authentic Christian life. We have seen that Tyconius’ purpose is not to promote negativism or fatalism, but to consider evil as a necessary a priori – a preliminary condition which opens the way for the a posteriori, that is, the appreciation of good. For this reason, Tyconius believes that evil becomes weaker when one advocates good, falsehood is weakened when one decides to live in truth, hopelessness disappears when one puts his hope in God’s ultimate justice. At present, evil may seem to be triumphantly enthroned in the church (cf. 2 Thess 2:4), but Tyconius underlines that God’s logic is different. We find a similar dialectic in St. Paul, who in 1 Cor 1:26–29 points out that God has chosen what is “foolish,” “weak,” “low and despised,” “things that are not” in order to “shame” those who think they are “wise” or “strong.” Our analysis, therefore, allows us to affirm that Tyconius’ reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12 is a reception of hope that assures his audience that everything is under God’s control, even if it does not seem to be at the present moment.

266

Conclusion

A larger goal of this work has been to promote the value of studying the reception history of the Bible. Reception history is like a bridge which connects us with earlier interpretations of biblical texts and allows us to see them in a new light that can also illuminate our present situation. The full truth and message of the Bible has not been, and probably never will be, fully unveiled. The historical journeys of the biblical texts and their interactions with other mediums throughout the centuries open our eyes to new dimensions of those texts and their capacity to shape cultures and influence many societies. Ian Boxall underlines that doing reception history, allows us “to explore the trajectory of specific traditions of interpretation, open up forgotten or fresh perspectives, and challenge historical-critical assumptions that the meaning of a text is straightforward or univocal.”1 Andrew Talbert speaks about the beauty of reading temporally distant texts, but reminds us that the meaning of those texts “persists forever, insofar as they are ‘fitting’ to Divine Beauty, and they disclose their fullness as ‘beautiful’ insofar as they participate in this locus of Beauty, to which we have access through the Revelation of God the Son, the true form of Beauty.”2 This is precisely the task of the reception history of the biblical texts – to show “if these readings are faithful (i.e., beautiful)” if they are “true participations in Scripture and, ultimately, deeper participations in the Triune God.”3 Among various ways of practising the reception of biblical texts, this book proposes and effectively applies a method composed of the dynamism of historical, literary, and theological levels, in order to understand the horizon of Tyconius’ multidimensional thought and recognise its theological manifestation. Since the beginning of the present investigation, we have considered this reception process as a basic tripartite structure. We have seen that these levels of reception of the studied pericope have helped us to discover the hidden reasons behind Tyconius’ motivation to consider 2 Thess 2:3–12 relevant for his historical context, to appreciate his creativity in the construction of a literary world, and to open up new ways to examine his fascinating, multilevel, theological insights. In other words, Tyconius’ dialogue with the text, that is, the questions with which he approached it and his openness to be questioned by the text, provided him with a necessary means for facing his ecclesiastical reality. This process of fusion between Tyconius’ horizon and the horizon of 2 Thess 2:3–12 produced in him the effect that we have called, after Gadamer, a process of a transformative assimilation. It is precisely this inner experience of dialogue between the interpreted text and the interpretative reality that 1 Ian Boxall, “Reception History and the Interpretation of Revelation,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Book of Revelation, ed. Craig R. Koester, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 389. 2 Andrew R. Talbert, Receiving 2 Thessalonians. Theological Reception Aesthetics from the Early Church to the Reformation (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2019), 125. 3 Ibid., 125–26.

Conclusion

267

prompted Tyconius to a performative effectiveness on the literary level, that is, the construction of his own view of the world. This in turn, opened the door for a productive process of theological insights that obviously began with him, but also continue after him. As we have noted, Tyconius’ hermeneutics presented in the Liber Regularum and applied by him in the Expositio Apocalypseos correspond to the proposed tripartite structure of reception. The most remarkable and original result to emerge from this tripartite structure of reception is Tyconius’ careful selection of several motifs from 2 Thess 2:3–12, among which homo peccati, mysterium facinoris and discessio, taken from vv. 3b.c and 7a, are the most important. These three primary motifs, infused by Tyconius with new meanings, were used by him to make sense of his world, that is, to describe and evaluate the situation of fourth-century North African Christianity. Certainly, these motifs significantly influenced his worldview, helped him to reshape his vision of the church and the Christian life, and find a deeper meaning of the coexistence of evil and good in the midst of the church. They provided Tyconius with a solid foundation for building up his system of bipartition. From the motifs chosen by him, he derived a systematic concept of two kinds of brothers and sisters who constitute the church, their opposing activities within the same body, and their current spiritual, but, in the future, physical separation. The investigation allows us to say that Tyconius’ goal is pedagogical – he wants to help his audience to gain an awareness of their present bipartite situation and to orient them to the future unity. He addressed all Christians, without distinguishing between Donatists or Caecilianists, recognising that in each party there are true brothers and sisters who need encouragement and false brothers and sisters who need conversion. We can say, in fact, that Tyconius was able to become aware of the situation of the church of his time thanks to the text of 2 Thess 2:3–12 and, in consequence, the exegete, with a strong sense of Christian responsibility, communicated this awareness to the Christians around him. In other words, here the mission of the church is highlighted as a mediation that has begun with the author of 2 Thessalonians, and passes through Tyconius to the Christian community of his time. It is important to remember that 2 Thess 2:3–12 became for the African exegete a kind of mirror through which he looks not only at his reality, but at the entire Scripture – the text of both hermeneutical and theological reference that underlines the principle of the unity of the Scriptures, in which the whole can be understood from a part and a part from the whole. It has been clearly demonstrated that Tyconius interprets the text of Revelation in light of his 2 Thessalonians’ motifs, but also other biblical texts as well, including the motif of the Antichrist (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7), as well as Eph 6:12, Gen 19, Matt 24:15, Ezek 26–28, 32, 37, Isa 14, which all influence his reading of 2 Thess 2:3–12. The clustering of various biblical texts or motifs shows Tyconius’ interpretative method, which was already known among various church fathers, and it confirms the rule that the Bible explains itself. This way of doing

268

Conclusion

exegesis was, for Tyconius, a concrete response to the spiritual needs of the divided Christian community. As we have seen, both the Donatists and the Caecilianists believed in the power of the biblical text and used the Bible for the construction of their worlds, but often as a means of vindication or attack without a sincere understanding of the transformative assimilation and without a desire to search for truth. Tyconius’ honest listening to the Word of God specified in the Sacred Scriptures, and his focus on the spiritual rather than controversial level, prevented him from an accusatory attitude and opened him up to a mystical view of the world, that is the view according to the Spirit. Our analyses also demonstrated that 2 Thess 2:3–12, which has usually been understood as a text focussed on eschatology, is, by Tyconius’ particular understanding of the world, relevant for ecclesiology and anthropology as well. The examination of his reception has interestingly illustrated that Tyconius focuses not only on the church in general, but by using anthropological language and images, deals with the human beings who constitute this church. The correlation between the church and the human being is remarkable, because it shows that the schism of the fourth-century African church, and even more so the spiritual relationship between Christians themselves, is mirrored in the bipartition of human nature. The earthly church is made up of concrete human beings. The historical development of the former cannot exclude or ignore the concrete development of the latter. Medieval thinkers were right in saying that divine grace does not supplant human nature, but rather heals and elevates it. In this sense, Tyconius’ exegesis is an important call for the theology of today to look into the past and rediscover the ancient receptions of the biblical texts that have been overlooked. Moreover, Tyconius’ exegesis offers a pertinent conception of theology for our times, that is, not as an end in itself but as a mediation between the religious experience and the cultural and historical experience of the human being. Reawakening, in our case, Tyconius’ reception of 2 Thess 2:3–12 can help us to reformulate our present theological perspectives. If eschatology has, for Tyconius, an ecclesiological and anthropological impact, the time of the church is the time of human being and, vice versa, the time of human being is the time of the church, and both times are oriented to future or eschatological realities. In this sense, Tyconius helps us to retrieve a proper and authentic concept of that reality, which has been reduced by modernity to mainly the created, physical, and empirical world, or assumed to be a perfect world where humanity is without need for a relationship with God, or God is indifferent to human beings or distant from the world. The African exegete demonstrates that reality is a unitary component between God, human beings, and the world, between past, present, and future – what we can call a metaphysical unity. In Tyconius’ program, the unity of the parts constitutes the unitary reality and the unity of reality can only be understood from its parts. In order to make the ancient reception applicable for present theology, it is important to grasp the questions of previous receptions. In order

Conclusion

269

to transpose, one has to first to understand the original. To understand the original, one has to grasp its originating questions. The possibility of perfecting and enlarging the old depends on first understanding it, and deep knowledge seems hard to come by. What is not first properly understood in its own context cannot be meaningfully related to the present context.4

In this way we can recognise ourselves like “dwarfs on the shoulders of giants,” because “we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size.”5 The functionality of the basic tripartite structure, presented in this book, has manifested itself as a process open to the inclusion or further development of new and different levels of reception, like, for example, psychological, sociological, or ecumenical, etc. The openness of the reception history to welcome the collaboration with other disciplines like theology, history, literature, music, art, etc., certainly has a potentiality to bring various scholars into a constructive dialogue. Often, ordinary people and biblical scholarship seem to exist in two different worlds that do not encounter each other or only occasionally. Reception history helps to appreciate the way in which the biblical texts are embraced in ‘real life’ by simple people and provides rich material for scientific research. The proposed methodology, which attempts to reconcile the historical-critical method and reception history, is a good example of a dialogue that Western and Eastern biblical scholars are attempting to begin. The content of this work, although it presents the divisiveness of Christians, points to the desired unity and authenticity of the Christian life and shows the possible ways in which this can be achieved.6 Working on reception without neglecting the original meaning of the text in its context is an important step for active, humble, and collaborative ecumenism with Orthodoxy. Tyconius’ approach to Scripture provides some direction and common points of reflection. According to him, 4 Jeremy D. Wilkins, Before Truth. Lonergan, Aquinas, and the Problem of Wisdom (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2018), 98. 5 This is the expression of Juan de Salisbury attributed to Bernard de Chatres. See Iohannes Saresberiensis, Metalogicon 3.4.45 (CCCM 98.116): “Dicebat Bernardus Carnotensis nos esse quasi nanos gigantum umeris insidentes, ut possomus plura eis et remotiora videre, non utique propria visus acumine, aut eminentia corporis, sed quia in altum sybuehimur et extollimur magnitudine gigantea.” 6 For important enterprises of Western-Eastern scholarly collaboration see, for example: James D.G. Dunn et al., eds., Auslegung der Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Perspektive. Akten des west-östlichen Neutestamentler-/innen-Symposiums von Neamt vom 4.–11. September 1998, WUNT 130 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000): 169–206; Christos Karakolis, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, and Sviatoslav Rogalsky, Gospel Images of Jesus Christ in Church Tradition and in Biblical Scholarship, Fifth International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars, Minsk, September 2 to 9, 2010, WUNT 288 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012); Tobias Nicklas, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, and Mikhail Seleznov, eds., History and Theology in the Gospel Narratives, Seventh East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars, Moscow September 26 to October 1, 2016, WUNT 447 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020).

270

Conclusion

all Christians are invited to look for truth in Scripture together and sincerely entrusting themselves to the guidance of the Spirit. The present focus on Christological issues in the ecumenical dialogue does not seem to produce any significant results. Perhaps, the more appropriate way, before arriving at the Person of Christ, would be to concentrate on the Person of the Holy Spirit and his activity in the Scriptures, and learning from each other how to study and apply the Word of God. We can say even more, the study of Tyconius’ pneumatology needs to be deepened, because in it the elements of ecumenical dialogue can be identified. In the end, we could ask ourselves if it is possible for today’s Christians to consider Tyconius as an authoritative theologian? To help in answering this question, we can note the recent book of the Spanish writer Antonio Pau entitled Herejes (Heretics) in which he presents the biographies of twenty-two men and women, who between the second and seventeenth centuries, departed from the established religious orthodoxy. The author argues that the word “heresy” that derives from the Greek term αἱρέσεις originally meant “opinion,” “belief,” or “criterion.” A heretic, was, therefore, someone who had a critical mindset, his own criteria of judgment and the courage to disagree with the official teaching. In fact, in his First Letter to the Corinthians 11:19, St. Paul recognises the usefulness of such an attitude. He states: “indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine” (δεῖ γὰρ καὶ αἱρέσεις (oportet et haereses esse) ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι, ἵνα [καὶ] οἱ δόκιμοι φανεροὶ γένωνται ἐν ὑμῖν). Only later, Irenaeus and other church fathers began to use the term ‘heretic’ in a pejorative sense. That is precisely how Augustine harmfully labelled Tyconius, though at the end of his episcopacy he seems to understand his error. Pau obviously distinguishes those who sought exclusively to be original merely for the sake of being original, from those who can be defined as suffering and misunderstood prophets. The latter clearly saw the reality and felt obliged to speak even if it cost them their reputation or life. Tyconius was certainly a humble researcher of truth, attentive to the voice of the Spirit, in love with Scripture and courageous enough to speak honestly, even at the risk of his own position. He read the Scriptures through the lens of bipartition in order to construct his literary world and transmit his teaching on the present mysterious reality of the church, human beings, and temporality. There are not many people who want to believe that unpopular opinions can be constructive and illuminating for the understanding of faith. It is rather preferable to attack the one who reflects and asks questions and then consider him as a persona non grata. But, on the basis of our analysis, it is precisely Tyconius’ humility that makes him great, and an example for today’s Christianity. He did not claim to have a monopoly on the truth about the church but untiringly kept pointing to Scripture as the source of truth, which in the Middle Ages would be defined as the norma normans non normata (“the norm of norms that is not normed”). For Tyconius, Scripture is the standard according to which all the standards of

Conclusion

271

Christian life should be measured. Scripture speaks about the church and the members of the church because it is vivified by the Holy Spirit who is norma normata primaria. He enables every believing member of the church to discover the hidden treasures of the Word of God, to interpret it in a determinate historical moment and, therefore, this capacity can be called norma normata secundaria. Such individuals like Tyconius, whose thought was honest and who did not want to betray himself, should be recognised as an authoritative theologian. It is why St. Paul was right in saying “oportet haereses esse,” because the divisiveness of opinions shapes faith and allows the truth to surface.

Bibliography New Testament Aland, Kurt/Aland, Barbara/Karavidopoulos, Johannes/Martini, Carlo M./Metzger, Bruce M., eds.: Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th Revised Edition by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research. Münster/Westphalia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012. Frede, Josef, ed.: Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel. Epistulae ad Thessalonicensis, Timotheum, Tito, Philemonem, Hebraeos. Vol. 25:1. Freiburg: Herder, 1975–1982.

Editions and Translations of Tyconius’ Works Tichonii Liber de septem regulis. Pages 1352–87 in Monumenta Sacrorum Patrum Orthodoxographa. Edited by Johann Jakob Grynaeus. Vol. 3. Basel: Henricpetri, 1569. Tichonii Liber de septem regulis. Pages 79–122 in Sacra Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum. Edi-ted by Margarinus de la Bigne. Vol. 2. Paris: Sonnium, 1575. Tichonii Liber de septem regulis. Pages 125–41 in Magna Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum et Antiquorum Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum. Edited by Margarinus de la Bigne and André Schott. Vol. 15. Cologne: Hierat, 1622. Tichonii Liber de septem regulis. Pages 49–67 in Maxima Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum et Antiquorum Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum. Edited by Margarinus de la Bigne and André Schott. Vol. 6. Lyon: Anisson, 1677. Tichonii Liber de septem regulis. Pages 105–29 in Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum Antiquor-umque Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum. Edited by André Galland. Vol 8. Venice: Hieron, 1772. Tichoni Afri Liber de septem regulis. Pages 15–66 in PL 18. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris: Garnier, 1848. The Book of Rules of Tyconius: Newly Edited from the Mss. with an Introduction and an Examination into the Text of the Biblical Quotations. Edited by Francis C. Burkitt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1894. An English Translation of Tyconius’ Liber Regularum. Translated by A.R. Kent. Master’s the-sis. University of Sheffield, 1943. The Turin Fragments of Tyconius’ Commentary on Revelation. Texts and Studies. New Series 7. Edited by Francesco Lo Bue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. The Book of Rules of Tyconius: An Introduction and Translation with Commentary. Translated by Douglas Leslie Anderson. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1980. Tyconius: The Book of Rules, I–III. Pages 104¬–32 in Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church. Edited and translated by Karlfried Froehlich. Sources of Early Christian Thought. Edited by William G. Rusch. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

274

Bibliography

Tyconius: The Book of Rules. Latin and English. Introduction, notes, and translation by William S. Babcock. SBL: Texts and Translations 31. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989. Ticonio: Sette regole per la Scrittura. Translated by Luisa and Daniela Leoni. Bologna: Centro Editoriale Dehoniano, 1997. Tyconius: Le Livre des Règles. In SC 488. Edited and translated by Jean-Marc Vercruysse. Paris: Cerf, 2004. Ticonio: Libro de Las Reglas. Edited and translated by Juan José Ayán Calvo. Fuentes Patrísticas 23. Madrid: Ciudad Nueva, 2009. Tyconii Afri Expositio Apocalypseos. In CCSL 107A. Edited by Roger Gryson. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011. Tyconius: Commentaire de l’Apocalypse. Introduction, traduction et notes. In CCT 10. Translated by Roger Gryson. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011. Liber Regularum: Kniha pravidiel. Pages 27–37 in Pluralita myslenia v tradícii krest’anského staroveku a stredoveku. Edited by Miloš Lichner, Ratislav Nemec, Marcela Andoková, and Cyril Šesták. Translated by Marcela Andoková. Trnava: Dobrá kniha, 2014. Tyconius: Expositio Apocalypseos. (Tyconius: Exposition of the Apocalypse). Translated by Francis X. Gumerlock. Introduction and notes by David C. Robinson. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2017. Tyconius and Apringius. Zwei alte lateinische Kommentare zur Offenbarung des Johannes. Translated by Albrecht und Erika von Blumenthal. Berlin: Logos Verlag, 2018.

Ancient Sources and Translations Ambrose. De officiis ministrorum. In PL 16. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1845. Ammianus Marcellinus. History. Translated by John C. Rolfe. Vol. 2. London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963. –. Res gestae a fine Cornelii Taciti. Edited by John C. Rolfe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Edited by Ingram Bywater. Oxford: Clarendon, 1894. Augustine. Breviculus collationis cum donatistis. In PL 43. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1865. –. Contra Cresconium grammaticum et Donatistam. In CSEL 52. Edited by Michael Petschenig. Vienna: Tempsky, 1909. –. Contra epistulam Parmeniani. Pages 17–141 in Sancti Aurelii Augustini Scripta contra Donatistas. In CSEL 51. Edited by Michael Petschenig. Vienna: Vindobonae, 1908. –. Contra Gaudentium donatistarum episcopum. In CSEL 53. Edited by Michael Petschenig. Vienna: Tempsky, 1910. –. Contra litteras Petiliani. In CSEL 52. Edited by Michael Petschenig. Vienna: Tempsky, 1909. –. De baptismo contra Donatistas. In CSEL 51. Edited by Michael Petschenig. Vienna: Tempsky, 1908. –. De civitate Dei. In CCSL 48. Edited by B. Dombart and A. Kalb. Turnhout: Brepols, 1955. –. De civitate Dei. In PL 41. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1864. –. De doctrina christiana. In CCSL 32. Edited by K.D. Daur and Joseph Martin. Turnhout: Brepols, 1962. –. De doctrina christiana. Edited and translated by R.P.H. Green. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. –. Enarrationes in Psalmos. In PL 36–37. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1865.

Ancient Sources and Translations

275

–. Enarrationes in Psalmos. In CCSL 38–40. Edited by Emilius Dekkers and Johannes Fraipoint. Turnhout: Brepols, 1956. –. Epistula ad catholicos de secta Donatistarum. In OSA 28. Traités Anti-Donatistes. Vol. 1. Edited by Y. Congar. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963. –. Epistulae (1–55). In CCSL 31. Edited by Klaus D. Daur. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004. –. Epistulae. In PL 33. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1865. –. Epistulae (1–30). In CSEL 34:2. Edited by A. Goldbacher. Vienna: Tempsky, 1898. –. Epistulae (185–270). In CSEL 57. Edited by A. Goldbacher. Vienna: Tempsky, 1911. –. Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 3.30–4 and 3.123. In SC 224.1004–6 and 1078. Edited by Serge Lancel. Paris: Cerf, 1975. –. Letters 1–99 (Epistulae). The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century. Edited by John E. Rotelle. Translated by Roland Teske. Vol. II/1. Hyde Park: New City Press, 2001. –. Letters 156–210 (Epistulae). The Works of Saint Augustine. A Translation for the 21st Century. Edited by Boniface Ramsey. Translated by Roland Teske. Vol. II/3. Hyde Park: New City Press, 2004. –. Œuvres de Saint Augustin, 29. Quatrieme Serie. Traités Anti-Donatistes. Translated by De G. Finaert. BA 2. Paris: Desclée, 1964. –. Sermo 46. In PL 38. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1863. –. The City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. –. Writings in Connection with the Donatist Controversy. Translated by J.R. King. Frankfurt am Main: Outlook Verlag, 2019. Bede the Venerable. Explenatio Apocalypsis. In PL 93. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1862. –. The Exposition of the Apocalypse by Bede the Presbyter. Pages 110–95 in Ancient Christian Texts. Latin Commentaries on Revelation. Edited and translated by William C. Weinrich. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011. Caesarius of Arles. Exposition on the Apocalypse. Pages 63–109 in Ancient Christian Texts. Latin Commentaries on Revelation. Edited and translated by William C. Weinrich. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011. –. Opera omnia: nunc primum in unum collecta. Bruges: Maretioli, 1937–42. Reprinted in CCSL 103–4. Edited by Germain Morin. 2 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 1953. Cassian, John. De incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium. In PL 50. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1865. Cassiodorus. Supplementum. In PL 70. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1865. Cyprian. De lapsis. In CSEL 3. Edited by G. Hartel. Vienna: Tempsky, 1868. –. Testimonia ad Quirinium. In PL 4. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1844. –. Treatise III: On the Lapsed. In ANF: Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian. Edited by James Alexander and James Donaldson. Vol. 5. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. –. Sententiae episcoporum de haereticis baptizandis. In CSEL 3E. Edited by G.F. Diercks. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004. Edwards, Mark, ed. and trans., Optatus: Against the Donatists. TTH 27. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1997. Erasmus. Ecclesiastes sive concionator evangelicus. Opera Omnia. Edited by Jean Le Clerc. Vol. 3. Leiden: Petrus van der Aa, 1704. Eusebius of Caesarea. De laudibus Constantini. In PG 20. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1857.

276

Bibliography

–. Historia Ecclesiastica. In Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History. Books 6–10. Edited and translated by K. Lake & J. Oulton. Vol. 2. LCL 265. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932. –. The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine. From AD 306 to AD 337. CRES 8. Merchantville, NJ: Evolution Publishing, 2009. –. Vita Constantini. Translated by Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Ex Concilio Carthaginensi. In PL 8. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1844. Filastrius. De haeresibus. In CH 1. Edited by Franciscus Oehler. Berlin: Asher, 1856. Flavius, Josephus. Jewish Antiquities. Translated by William Whiston. London: Wordsworth, 2006. –. The Jewish War. Translated by Martin Hammond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Gennadius of Marseilles. Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis. In PL 58. Edited by JacquesPaul Migne. Paris, 1862. Gesta apud Zenophilum. In CSEL 26. Edited by Carolus Ziwsa. Vienna: Tempsky, 1893. Gesta conlationis Carthaginensis anno 411. In SC 195. Edited and translated by Serge Lancel. Paris: Cerf, 1974. Hilary of Poitiers. Commentarius in Matthaeum. In SC 258. Edited by Jean Doignon. Paris: Cerf 1978. Hippolytus. Commentarii in Danielem. In GCS 1.1. Edited by Georg N. Bonwetsch. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897. –. De Christo et Antichristo. In BP 10. Edited by Enrico Norelli. Firenze: Nardini Editore, 1987. –. De Christo et Antichristo. In GCS 1. Edited by Hans Achelis. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897. Hugo of St. Victor. De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris. In PL 175. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1854. –. Didascalicon. In PL 176. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1854. Irenaeus of Lyons. Adversus haereses. In ANF 1. Edited by William W. Harvey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1857. –. Adversus haereses. In SC 153. Edited by Adelin Rousseau, L. Doutreleau, and Ch. Mercier. Paris: Cerf, 1969. Isidore of Seville. Liber numerorum. Edited by J.Y. Guillaumin. Paris: Les Belles Letters, 2005. –. Sententiae. In PL 83. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1862. Jerome. De viris illustribus. In PL 23. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1883. Iohannes Saresberiensis. Metalogicon. In CCCM 98. Edited by J.B. Hall. Turnhout: Brepols, 1991. John Chrysostom. In Epistolam Secundum ad Thessalonicenses Commentarius, Homilia 4. In PG 62. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1862. Lactantius. Divinae institutiones. In CSEL 19. Edited by S. Brandt. Vienna: Tempsky, 1890. Lindemann, A. and H. Paulsen, eds. Die Apostolischen Väter. Griechisch-deutsche Paralellausgabe auf der Grundlage der Ausgaben von F.X. Funk / K. Bihlmeyer und M. Whittaker. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992. Nicholas of Lyra. Postilla super totam bibliam. In PL 113. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1852. Musurillo, Herbert A. ed. and trans. Acts of Christian Martyrs. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Optatus. Against the Donatists. Edited and translated by Mark Edwards. TTH 27. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1997.

Ancient Sources and Translations

277

–. S. Optati Milevitani libri VII. In CSEL 26. Edited by Carolus Ziwsa. Prague: Tempsky, 1893. Origen. Contra Celsum. In SC 136:2. Edited by M. Borret. Paris: Cerf, 1967. –. Contra Celsum. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. –. Commentarii in Iohannem. In SC 385. Edited and translated by Cécil Blanc. Paris: Cerf, 1992. –. Commentariorum series in Matthaeum. In GSC 38. Edited by Erich Klostermann and E. Benz. Leipzig: Teubner, 1933. –. In Genesim homiliae. In GCS 29. Edited by Wilhelm A. Baehrens. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1920. –. In Ieremiam homiliae. In SC 238. Edited by Pierre Husson and Pierre Nautin. Paris: Cerf, 1977. –. Traité des Principes. Introduction, texte critique de la Philocalie et de la version de Rufin. In SC 268. Edited by Henri Crouzel and Manlio Simonetti. Vol. 3. Paris: Cerf, 1980. –. Traité des Principes. Commentaire et fragments. In SC 269. Edited by Henri Crouzel and Manlio Simonetti. Vol. 4. Paris: Cerf, 1980. Passio benedicti martyris Marculi. In Le dossier du donatisme: Des origines à la mort de Constance II (303–361). Edited by Jean-Louis Maier. Vol. 1. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1987. Passio Datiui, Saturnini presbyteri et aliorum. In Le dossier du donatisme. Des originse à la mort de Constance II (303–361). Edited by Jean-Louis Maier. Vol. 1. Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1987. Passio Datiui, Saturnini presbyteri et aliorum. In PL 8. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1844. Passio Marculi. In PL 8. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1844. Passio Maximiani. In PL 8. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1844. Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis. In The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Edited and translated by Herbert Musurillo. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Possidius. Vita Augustini. In PL 32. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1841. Primasius. Commentarius in Apocalypsin. In CCSL 92. Edited by Allan W. Adams. Turnhout: Brepols, 1985. Pseudo-Cyprian. De duobus montibus Sina et Sion. In BP 25. Edited by C. Burini. Fiesole: Nardini, 1994. Quodvultdeus. De promissionibus. In PL 51. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1861. Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace. eds. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, etc. Vol. 3. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892. Sermo de passione sanctorum Donati et Advocati. In PL 8. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1844. –. In Le dossier du donatisme: Des origines à la mort de Constance II (303–361). Edited by Jean-Louis Maier. Vol. 1. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1987. Sermo in natali sanctorum innocentium. In PLS 1. Edited by A. Hamman. Paris: Éditions Garnier Frère, 1958. Suetonius Tranquillus. De vita Caesarum (Lives of the Caesars). Translated by Catharine Edwards. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Sulpicius Severus. Chronica 2. In CSEL 1. Edited by Karl Halm. Vienna: C. Gerold, 1866. Tertullian. Ad Scapulam. In CCSL 2. Edited by Eligius Dekkers. Turnhout: Brepols, 1954. –. Adversus Marcionem. In PL 2. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1844.

278

Bibliography

–. Apologeticus pro Christianis. In PL 1. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris, 1844. –. Apologeticum. In CCSL 1. Edited by Eligius Dekkers. Turnhout: Brepols, 1954. –. Apology. De Spectaculis. Translated by T.R. Glover and Gerald H. Rendall. LCL 250. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1934. –. De baptismo. In CCSL 1. Edited by J.G.P. Borleffs. Turnout: Brepols, 1954. –. De praescriptione haereticorum. In CCSL 1. Edited by R.F. Refoulé. Turnhout: Brepols, 1954. –. De resurrectione mortuorum. In CCSL 2. Edited by Jan W. P. Borleffs. Turnhout, Brepols, 1954. –. On Prescription against Heretics. In ANF. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Vol. 3. Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1885–57. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Theophilus of Antioch. Ad Autolycum. In ANF. Edited by M. Dods. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953. Tilley, Maureen A. ed. and trans. Donatist Martyr Stories. The Church in Conflict in Roman North Africa. TTH 24. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1996. Vassall-Phillips, Oliver Rodie. trans. The Work of St. Optatus: A Catholic Church History, wherein a Saint and Early Church Father Condemns the Donatist Schism after the Persecution of Christians by Roman Emperor Diocletian (All Seven Books with Appendixes). 4th kindle edition. London: Longmans, 2018; first edition in 1917. Victorinus of Pettau. Commentarius in Apocalypsin. In SC 423. Victorin de Poetovio: Sur l’Apocalypse et autres écrits. Edited by Martine Dulaey. Paris: Cerf, 1997. –. Commentary on the Apocalypse. Pages 1–22 in Ancient Christian Texts. Latin Commentaries on Revelation. Edited and translated by William C. Weinrich. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011.

Secondary Literature Agee, James, and Walker Evans. Let Us Now Praise Famous Men: Three Tenant Families. Boston: Mainer Books, 2001. Alexander, James A. “Tyconius’ Influence on St. Augustine. A Note on their Use of the Distinction corporaliter / spiritaliter.” Congresso internazionale su S. Agostino nel XVI centenario della conversione, Roma 15–20 settembre, 1986. SEAug 25 (1987): 205–11. Bakel, Hendrik A. van. “Tyconius, Augustinus ante Augustinum.” NTT 19 (1930): 36–57. Baker, George P. Constantine the Great and the Christian Revolution. New York: Cooper Square, 2001. Balthasar, Hans U. von. Il tutto nel frammento. Aspetti di teologia della storia. Translated by Laura and Pierangelo Sequeri. Milano: Jaca Book, 1972 [orig. pub. Das Ganze im Fragment. Aspekte der Geschichtstheologie. Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1963]. Barcellona, Francesco Scorza. “L’interpretazione dei doni dei magi nel sermone natalizio de [Pseudo] Ottato di Milevi.” SSR 2 (1978): 129–40. Barnes, Timothy D. Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study. Revised edition. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Edwyn C. Hoskyns. London: Oxford University Press, 1933 (orig. pub. Der Römerbrief [Erste Fassung, 1919]. Edited by H. Schmidt. Vol. 1. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1985). Barton, John. The Nature of Biblical Criticism. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007.

Secondary Literature

279

–., and John Muddiman. “General Introduction.” Pages 1–5 in OBC. Edited by John Barton and John Muddiman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Baur, Ferdinand Chr. “Über Zweck und Veranlassung des Römerbriefs und die damit zusammenhängenden Verhältnisse der römischen Gemeinde. Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung.” TZTh 3 (1836): 59–178. Beal, Timothy. “Reception History and Beyond: Toward the Cultural History of Scriptures.” BibInt 19 (2011): 357–72. Beale, Gregory, K. 1–2 Thessalonians. NTCS. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003. Beaver, Robert Pierce. “The Donatist Circumcellions.” ChHis 4 (1935): 123–33. Beker, J. Christiaan. Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel: The Coming Triumph of God. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982. Belloni, Annalisa, and Mirella Ferrari, eds. La Biblioteca Capitolare di Monza. Medioevo e umanesimo. Padova: Antenore, 1974. Benedict XVI. Deus Caritas Est. Encyclical Letter on Christian Love, 25 December, 2005. In AAS 98 (2006), 227–30. –. Spe Salvi. In AAS 99 (2007), 985. –. Saved in Hope. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008. Berardino, Angelo di. Istituzioni della Chiesa Antica. Venezia: Marcianum Press, 2019. Berlinerblau, Jacques. The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Best, Ernest. A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. BNTC. London: Black, 1977. Betz, Otto. “Der Katechon,” New Testament Studies 9.3 (1963): 276–91. Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and revised by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1–24. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Blockley, Roger C. “The Dynasty of Theodosius.” Pages 111–37 in The Cambridge Ancient History: The Late Empire, AD 337–425. Edited by A. Cameron and P. Garnsey. Vol. 13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Bockmuehl, Markus. “A Commentator’s Approach to the ‘Effective History’ of Philippians.” JSNT 60 (1996): 57–88. Bouffartigue, Jean. “L’empereur Julien était-il intolerant?” REA 53 (2007): 1–14. Boxall, Ian. “Reception History and the Interpretation of Revelation.” Pages 377–93 in The Oxford Handbook of the Book of Revelation. Edited by Craig R. Koester. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. Böhme, Hartmut, Lutz Bergemann, Martin Dönike, Albert Schirrmeister, Georg Toepfer, Marco Walter, and Julia Weitbrecht, eds. Transformation. Ein Konzept zur Erforschung kulturellen Wandels. München: Fink, 2011. Brandt, Hartwin. Konstantin der Große. Der erste christliche Kaiser. München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 2006. Bräutigam, Michael. “Adolf Schlatter on scripture as Gnadenmittel: remedy for a hypertensive debate?” SJT 69 (2016): 81–94. Breed, Brennan. “What Can a Text Do? Reception History as an Ethology of the Biblical Text.” Pages 95–109 in Reception History and Biblical Studies. Theory and Practice. Edited by Emma England and William John Lyons. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Bremmer, Jan N. Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014.

280

Bibliography

Bright, Pamela. “Augustine and the Thousand Year Reign of Saints.” Pages 447–53 in Augustine Presbyter Factus Sum. Edited by Joseph T. Lienhard, Earl C. Muller, and Roland J. Teske. CA. New York: Lang, 1993. –. “Church, North Africa, 312 to 430.” In Augustine through the Ages. An Encyclopedia. Edited by Allan D. Fitzgerald, John Cavadini, Marianne Djuth, James J. O’Donnell, and Frederick Van Fleteren. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. –. The Book of Rules of Tyconius. Its Purpose and Inner Logic. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988. –. “The Church and the ‘Mystery of Iniquity’: Old Testament Prophecy in Fourth Century African Exegesis.” Consensus 23 (1997): 39–49. –. “‘The Prepondering Influence of Augustine’: A Study of the Epitomes of the Books of Rules of the Donatist Tyconius.” Pages 103–18 in Augustine and the Bible. The Bible through the Ages. Edited and translated by Pamela Bright. Vol. 2. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999 [orig. pub. Saint Augustin et la Bible. Bible de tous les Temps. Edited by Anne-Marie La Bonnardière. Vol. 3. Paris: Beauchesne, 1986]. Brisson, Jean-Paul. Autonomisme et christianisme dans l’Afrique romaine: Dans L’Afrique Romaine de Septime Sévère à l’invasion vandale. Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard, 1958. Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. –. “Christianity and Local Culture in Late Roman Africa.” JRS 58 (1968): 85–95. Brown, Stephen G. “The Intertextuality of Isaiah 66.17 and 2 Thessalonians 2.7: A Solution for the ‘Restrainer’ Problem.” Pages 254–77 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNT Supplement Series 83 / SSEJC 1. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Brubaker, Rogers. “Ethnicity Without Groups.” Arch. Europ. Sociol. 43 (2002): 163–89. Bruce, Frederick F. 1&2 Thessalonians. WBC. Waco: Word Books, 1982. Buchinger Harald and Clemens Leonhard, eds. Liturgische Bibelrezeption. Dimensionen und Perspektiven interdisziplinärer Forschung. Vol. 108. Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2021. Burns, James P., and Gerald M. Fagin. The Holy Spirit. Message of the Fathers of the Church. Vol. 3. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1984. Calderone, Sergio. “Circumcelliones.” ParPass 22 (1967): 94–109. Campos, Sergio Álvarez. “Fuentes literarias de Beato de Liébana.” Pages 117–62 in Actas del Simposio para el estudio de los códices del Comentario al Apocalipsis de Beato de Liébana. Vol. 1. Madrid: Joyas bibliográficas, 1978. Canellis, Aline. “Jerome’s hermeneutics. How to exegete the Bible?” Pages 49–76 in Patristic Theories of Biblical Interpretation: The Latin Fathers. Edited by Tarmo Toom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Carroll, Robert P. “The Reader and the Text.” Pages 3–34 in Text in Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study. Edited by Andrew D.H. Mayes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Castaldini, Alberto. Dolore del mondo e mistero di iniquità. Il male in Romani 8,18-39. Canterano: Aracne, 2020. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Cayré, Fulbert. Patrologie et histoire de la théologie. Vol. 1. Paris: Desclée et Cie, 1953. Charles, Robert H. Eschatology: The Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, Judaism and Christianity: A Critical History. New York: Schocken, 1963. Christe, Yves. “Tradition littéraires et iconographiques dans l’interprétation des images apocalyptiques.” Pages 109–34 in L’Apocalypse de Jean: Traditions exégétiques et iconogra-

Secondary Literature

281

phiques IIIe-XIIIe siècles: actes du Colloque de la Fondation Hardt, 29 février–3 mars. Edited by Yves Christe. Genève: Droz, 1979. Colpe, Carsten. “The Sacred and the Profane.” Pages 7964–78 in The Encyclopedia of Religion. 2nd ed. Edited by Lindsay Jones. Vol. 12. New York: Thomson Gale, 2005. Congar, Yves M.J. “Parménien et Tyconius.” Pages 718–20 in Traités anti-donatistes. Oeuvres de Saint Augustin. Vol. 1. BA 28. Paris: Desclée, 1963. Crossley, James G. “The End of Reception History, a Grand Narrative for Biblical Studies and the Neoliberal Bible.” Pages 45–59 in Reception History and Biblical Studies. Theory and Practice. Edited by Emma England and William John Lyons. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Daley, Brian E. God Visible: Patristic Christology Reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Dalferth, Ingolf U. Trascendenza e mondo secolare: Orientamento della vita alla Presenza ultima. Translated by Andrea Aguti. Brescia: Queriniana, 2016 [orig. pub. Transzendenz und säkulare Welt. Lebensorientierung an letzter Gegenwart. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015]. Daly, Robert S.J. Apocalyptic Thought in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Daniélou, Jean. The Theology of Jewish Christianity. Translated by John Baker. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977 [orig. pub. Theologie du judeo-christianisme. Paris: Desclée, 1958]. –., and Henrie I. Marrou. Historia Kościoła. Od początków do roku 600. Translated by Maria Tarnowska. Vol. 1. Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy Pax, 1986 [orig. pub. Nouvelle Histoire de l’Eglise: Des origines à Grégoire le Grand. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1963]. Danker, Frederick and Robert Jewett. “Jesus as the Apocalyptic Benefactor in Second Thessalonians.” Pages 486–98 in The Thessalonian Correspondence. Edited by Raymond F. Collins. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Davies, William D. “Paul and the People of Israel.” NTS 24 (1977): 4–39. Dearn, Alan. “Donatist Martyrs, Stories and Attitudes.” Pages 70–100 in The Donatist Schism: Controversy and Context. Edited by Richard Miles. TTHC 2. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2018. Denzinger, Heinrich. Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen. Edited by Peter Hünermann and translated by Helmut Hoping. 40th ed. Freiburg: Herder, 2005. English trans. in Heinrich Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari from the Thirtieth Edition of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum. Saint Louis, MO: Herder, 1957. Digeser, Elizabeth De Palma. The Making of a Christian Empire. Lactantius & Rome. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000. Dobschütz, Ernst, von. Die Thessalonicher-Briefe, KEK 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1909. Repr., 1974. Donfried, Karl P. “The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence.” NTS 31:3 (1985): 336–56. Dossey, Leslie. Peasant and Empire in Christian North Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010. Dressler, Harold H. “The Identification of the Ugaritic Dnil with the Daniel of Ezekiel.” VT 29 (1979): 231–41. Dubay, Thomas. The evidential power of beauty: Science and theology meet. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999.

282

Bibliography

Dulaey, Martine. “L’Apocalypse. Augustin et Tyconius.” Pages 369–86 in Saint Augustin et la Bible. Bible de touts les Temps. Edited by Anne-Marie La Bonnardière. Vol. 3. Paris: Beauchesne, 1986. –. “Tyconius.” DS 15. Paris: Beauchesne, 1991: 1349–56. –. Victorin de Poetovio: Premier exégète Latin. Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Vol. 1. Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 1993. Dunn, James D.G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. –., H. Klein, U. Luz, V. Mihoc, eds. Auslegung der Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Perspektive. Akten des west-östlichen Neutestamentler-/innen-Symposiums von Neamt vom 4.–11. September 1998. WUNT 130. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Dupont, Anthony, and Matteo Dalvit. “From a Martyrological ‘Tabernacula Pastorum’ Towards a Geographical ‘In Meridie’: Augustine’s Representation and Refutation of the Donatist Exegesis of Sg. 1,6–7.” RHE 109 (2014): 5–34 Durand, Emmanuel. Vangelo e Provvidenza. Una teologia dell’azione die Dio. Translated by Gloria Romagnoli. Brescia: Queriniana, 2018 [orig. pub. Évangile et Providence. Une théologie de l’action de Dieu. Paris: Cerf, 2014]. Duval, Yvette. Loca Sanctorum Africae. Le culte des martyrs en Afrique du IVe au VIIe siècle. Vol 1. Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 1982. Ebeling, Gerhard. The Word of God and Tradition. London: Collins, 1968. Edwards, Mark. “The Donatist Schism and Theology.” Pages 101–19 in The Donatist Schism. Controversy and Contexts. Edited by Richard Miles. TTHC 2. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2016. Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane. The Nature of Religion. The significance of religious myth, symbolism, and ritual within life and culture. Translated by Willard R. Trask. New York: Brace & World, 1963 [orig. pub. Das Heilige und das Profane. Hamburg: Vom Wesen des Religiösen, 1957]. Ellicott, Charles J. St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians: With a Critical and Grammatical Commentary, and a Revised Translation. 4th ed. London: Longmans, 1880. Elm, Susanna. Sons of Hellenism, Fathers of the Church: Emperor Julian, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Vision of Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012. Elton, Hugh. The Roman Empire in Late Antiquity: A Political and Military History. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018. England, Emma and William John Lyons, “Explorations in the Reception of the Bible.” Pages 3–13 in Reception History and Biblical Studies. Theory and Practice. Edited by Emma England and William John Lyons. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Evans, Ernest. Tertullian’s Homily on Baptism. London: SPCK, 1964. Fee, Gordon D. The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Ferré, Alberto Methol, and Alver Metalli. El Papa y el Filósofo. Buenos Aires: Editorial Biblios, 2013. Finance, Joseph De. Essai sur l’agir humain. Rome: Presses de l’Université Grégorienne, 1962. Fishbane, Michael A. “The Sacred Center: The Symbolic Structure of the Bible.” Pages 6–27 in Texts and Responses: Studies Presented to Nahum N. Glatzer on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday by his Students. Edited by Michael A. Fishbane and Paul R. Flohr. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Forestell, J. Terence in The Jerome Biblical Commentary. Edited by Raymond E. Brown, et. al. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968, 235.

Secondary Literature

283

Foster, Theodore. “‘Mysterium’ and ‘Sacramentum’ in the Vulgate and Old Latin Versions.” AmJT 19 (1915): 402–15. Frame, James E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912. Fredriksen Landes, Paula. “Apocalypse and Redemption in Early Christianity.” VC 45 (1991): 151–83. –. “Tyconius and the End of the World.” REAug 18 (1982): 59–75. Frend, William H.C. The Donatist Church. A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa. Oxford: Clarendon, 1952. –. “Circumcelliones and Monks.” JTS 20 (1969): 539–47. Frey, Jörg. “New Testament Eschatology – an Introduction: Classical Issues, Disputed Themes, and Current Perspectives.” Pages 3–32 in Eschatology of the New Testament and Some Related Documents. Edited by Jan G. Van Der Watt, WUNT 2:315. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –., Claire Clivaz, and Tobias Nicklas, eds. Between Canonical and Apocryphal Texts: Process of Reception, Rewriting, and Interpretation in Early Judaism and Early Christianity. WUNT 419. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. Fulford, Henry W. ed. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus: Revised Version Edited for the Use of Schools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Philosophical Hermeneutics. Edited and translated by David Linge. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977 (orig. pub. “Die phänomenologische Bewegung.” Philosophische Rundschau 11 [1963]: 1–45). –. Truth and Method. Translated by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. 2nd ed. London: Continuum, 2004 [orig. pub. Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960]. Gaddis, Michael. There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Gaeta, Giancarlo. “Il Liber Regularum di Ticonio. Studio sull’ermeneutica scritturistica.” ASE 5 (1988): 103–24. Gaumer, Matthew A. “The Evolution of Donatist Theology as Response to a Changing Late Antique Milieu.” Augustiniana 58 (2008): 201–33. Gaventa, Beverly R. First and Second Thessalonians. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1998. Ghellinck, Joseph de, Émile de Backer, Jean B. Poukens, and G. Lebacqz. Pour l’histoire du mot “sacramentum.” Louvain: Peeters, 1924. Giblin, Charles H. The Threat to Faith: An Exegetical and Theological Re-examination of 2 Thessalonians 2. AnBib 31. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967. –. “2 Thessalonians 2 Re-Read as Pseudepigraphal: A Revised Reaffirmation of The Threat to Faith.” Pages 459–69 in The Thessalonian Correspondence. Edited by Raymond F. Collins. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Gillingham, Susan E. “An Introduction to Reception History with particular reference to Psalm 1.” RevScRel 85 (2011): 571–99. –. “Biblical Studies on Holiday? A Personal View of Reception History.” Pages 17–30 in Reception History and Biblical Studies. Theory and Practice. Edited by Emma England and William John Lyons. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. –. The Psalms Through the Centuries. BBC. Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. Gillman, Florence M., Mary Ann Beavis, and HyeRan Kim-Cragg, 1 and 2 Thessalonians. WC 52. Edited by Barbara E. Reid. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2017.

284

Bibliography

Gold, Barbara K. Perpetua: Athlete of God. Women in Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Grasmück, Ernst L. Coercitio. Staat und Kirche im Donatistenstreit. BHF 22. Bonn: Röhrscheid, 1964. Green, Gene L. The Letters to the Thessalonians. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Grondin, Jean. Hans-Georg Gadamer: A Biography. Translated by Joel C. Weinsheimer. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003 [orig. pub. Hans-Georg Gadamer. Eine Biographie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999]. Gryson, Roger. “Fragments inédits du Commentaire de Tyconius sur l’Apocalypse.” RBén 107 (1997): 189–226. –. “Les commentaires patristiques latins de l’Apocalypse.” RTL 28 (1997): 305–37. Guardini, Romano. Accettare se stessi. Translated by Giovanni Pontoglio. Brescia: Morcelliana, 1992 [orig. pub. in Christliche Besinnung. Pages 5–30. Vol. 6. 1953. In 1960 the work was published as a separate monograph: Die Annahme seiner selbst. Würzburg: Werkbund-Verlag]. –. Appunti per un’autobiografia. Edited by F. Henrich. Translated by G. Penati. Brescia: Morcelliana, 1986 [orig. pub. Berichte über mein Leben: Autobiographische Aufzeichnungen. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1985]. –. L’opposizione polare. Saggio per una filosofia del concreto vivente. Brescia: Morcelliana, 1997 (orig. pub. Der Gegensatz. Versuche zu einer Philosophie des Lebendigkonkreten [Mainz: Matthias Grünewald 1925]). Gumerlock, Francis X. Revelation and the First Century: Preterist Interpretations of the Apocalypse in Early Christianity. Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2012. –. “Review of Roger Gryson, Tyconiii Afri Expositio Apocalypseos.” WTJ 74:2 (2012): 467– 71. Gunda, Masiiwa Ragies. “Reception History of the Bible: Prospects of a New Frontier in African Biblical Studies.” Pages 125–38 in Reception History and Biblical Studies. Theory and Practice. Edited by Emma England and William John Lyons. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Gundry, Robert H. The Church and the Tribulation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973. Hagner, Donald A. “Review: Matthew 8–20, by Ulrich Luz.” JBL 121 (2002): 766–69. Hahn, Traugott. Tyconius-Studien. Ein Beitrag zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts. Leipzig: Dietrich 1900. [Repr., Aalen: Scientia, 1971]. Harding, James E. “What is Reception History, and What Happens to You If You Do It?” Pages 31–44 in Reception History and Biblical Studies. Theory and Practice. Edited by Emma England and William John Lyons. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Hartman, Lars. “The Eschatology of 2 Thessalonians as Included in a Communication.” Pages 470–85 in The Thessalonian Correspondence. Edited by Raymond F. Collins. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Hebel, Udo J. Intertextuality, Allusion, and Quotation: An International Bibliography of Critical Studies. BIWL 18. New York: Greenwood Press, 1989. Heffernan, Thomas J. The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. Oxford: Blackwell, 1962 [orig. pub. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1927].

Secondary Literature

285

Hiebert, D. Edmond. The Thessalonian Epistles. A Call to Readiness. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971) Holland, Glenn S. The Tradition That You Received from Us: 2 Thessalonians in the Pauline Tradition. HUT 24. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988. Holman, Charles L. Till Jesus Comes. Origins of Christian Apocalyptic Expectation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Holmes, Michael W. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998. Holub, Robert C. Reception Theory: A Critical Introduction. London: Methuen, 1984. Hoover, Jesse A. “Scripture in Tyconius.” Pages 289–320 in The Bible in Christian North Africa. Part I: Commencement to the Confessions of Augustine (ca. 180 to 400 CE). Edited by Jonathan P. Yates and Anthony Dupont. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020. –. The Donatist Church in an Apocalyptic Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Hornig, Gottfried. Johann Salomo Semler: Studien zu Leben und Werk des Hallenser Aufklärungstheologen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1996. Houghton, Hugh A.G. “Scripture and Latin Christian Manuscripts from North Africa.” Pages 15–50 in The Bible in Christian North Africa. Part I: Commencement to the Confessions of Augustine (ca. 180 to 400 CE). Edited by Jonathan P. Yates and Anthony Dupont. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020. House, H. Wayne. “Apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3: Apostasy or Rapture?” Pages 261–95 in When the Trumpet Sounds. Edited by Thomas Ice and Timothy J. Demy. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1995. Howard-Brook, Wes. Empire Baptized: How the Church Embraced What Jesus Rejected, 2nd–5th Centuries. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2016. Huber, Konrad. “Aspekte der Apokalypse-Interpretation des Victorinus von Pettau am Beispiel des Christusvision in Offb 1.” Pages 94–117 in Interpretations of “Violent Texts” in the Apocalypse. Edited by Joseph Verheyden, Tobias Nicklas, Andreas Merkt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Hughes, Kevin L. Constructing Antichrist: Paul, Biblical Commentary, and the Development of Doctrine in the Early Middle Ages. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005. Hummelauer, Franz von. Exegetisches zur Inspirationsfrage: Mit besonderer Rücksicht auf das Alte Testament. BibS 9. Freiburg: Herder, 1904. Irvin, Dale T. and Scott W. Sunquist, History of the World Christian Movement. Earliest Christianity to 1453. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001. Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978 [orig. pub. Der Akt des Lesens. Theorie ästhetischer Wirkung. München: Fink, 1976]. –. The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974 [orig. pub. Der implizite Leser. Kommunikationsformen des Romans von Bunyan bis Beckett. München: Fink, 1972]. Jauss, Hans-Robert. Ästhetische Erfahrung und literarische Hermeneutik. München: Fink, 1977. –. “Der Leser als Instanz Einer Neuen Geschichte der Literatur.” Poetica 7 (1975): 326–40. –. Die Theorie der Rezeption: Rückschau auf ihre unerkannte Vorgeschichte: Ansprache anlässlich der Emeritierung von Hans Robert Jauss am 11. Februar 1987. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz, 1987. –. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Translated by Timothy Bahti. Brighton: The Harvest Press, 1982.

286

Bibliography

Jervell, Jacob. Imago Dei: Gen. 1.26f im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1960. Jewett, Robert. The Thessalonian Correspondence. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. Jong, Irene J.F. de, and John Patrick Sullivan, eds. Modern Critical Theory and Classical Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Jones, Ivor H. The Epistles to the Thessalonians. Peterborough: Epworth, 2005. Julian, Terry. Constantine, Christianity, and Constantinople. Oxford: Trafford Publishing, 2005. Kaczewski, Józef. “To katechon – ho katechon (2 Tes 2,6–7). Krytyka nowych rozwiązań i własna propozycja.” Analecta Cracoviensia 24 (1992): 153–70. Kannengiesser, Charles. “Augustine and Tyconius: A Conflict of Christian Hermeneutics in Roman Africa.” Pages 149–77 in Augustine and the Bible. The Bible Through the Ages. Edited by Pamela Bright. Vol. 2. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999 [orig. pub. Saint Augustin et la Bible. Bible de tous les Temps. Edited by Anne-Marie La Bonnardière. Vol. 3. Paris: Beauchesne, 1986]. –. “Quintilian, Tyconius and Augustine.” ICS 19 (1994): 239–52. –. “The Interrupted De Doctrina Christiana.” Pages 3–13 in De Doctrina Christiana. A Classic of Western Culture. Edited by Duane W.H. Arnold and Pamela Bright. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995. –. “Tyconius crux interpretorum: A Response to Karla Pollmann.” AugStud 9 (1998): 99–108. Karakolis, Christos, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, and Sviatoslav Rogalsky. Gospel Images of Jesus Christ in Church Tradition and in Biblical Scholarship, Fifth International EastWest Symposium of New Testament Scholars, Minsk, September 2 to 9, 2010. WUNT 288. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Käsemann, Ernst. Prospettive paoline. Edited by F. Montagnini. Translated by M. Ravà. Brescia: Paideia, 1972 [orig. pub. Paulinische Perspektiven. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1969]. Kasper, Walter. Introduzione alla fede. Translated by Rosino Gibellini. Brescia: Queriniana, 1973 [orig. pub. Einführung in den Glauben. Mainz: Matthias Grünewald, 1972]. Kaufman, Peter. “Donatism Revisited: Moderates and Militants in Late Antique North Africa.” Journal of Late Antiquity 2.1 (2009): 131–42. Kelly, John N. Early Christian Doctrines. 5th ed. New York: Continuum, 1977. Klancher, Nancy. “A Genealogy for Reception History.” BibInt 21 (2013): 99–129. Klauck, Hans-Josef. “Die antiken Mysterienkulte und das Urchristentum: Anknüpfung und Widerspruch.” Pages 171–93 in Religion und Gesellschaft im frühen Christentum: Neutestamentliche Studien. Edited by Jörg Frey, Martin Hengel, Otfried Hofius. WUNT 152. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Knoll, Alfons. Glaube und Kultur bei Romano Guardini. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1994. Körtner, Ulrich H.J. Der inspirierte Leser: Zentrale Aspekte biblischer Hermeneutik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. BzHT 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Koester, Helmut. “From Paul’s Eschatology to the Apocalyptic Schema of 2 Thessalonians.” Pages 441–58 in The Thessalonian Correspondence. Edited by Raymond F. Collins. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Kovacs, Judith L. and Christopher Rowland. Revelation: The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ. Malden: Blackwell, 2004.

Secondary Literature

287

Krentz, Edgar. The Historical Critical Method. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. –. “Traditions Held Fast: Theology and Fidelity in 2 Thessalonians.” Pages 505–15 in The Thessalonian Correspondence. Edited by Raymond F. Collins. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Lang, T.J. Mystery and the Making of a Christian Historical Consciousness: From Paul to the Second Century. BZNW 219. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. LaRondelle, Hans K. “Paul’s Prophetic Outline in 2 Thessalonians 2,” AUSS 21:1 (1983): 61–69. Latourelle, René. Teologia scienza della salvezza. Translated by V. Pagani. Assisi: Cittadella, 2005 [orig. pub. Théologie Science du Salut. Bruges: Desclée; Montréal: Les éd. Bellarmin, 1968]. Laub, Franz. Erster und zweiter Thessalonicherbrief, 2nd ed. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1988. Lauer, Philippe. Catalogue général des manuscrits latins. Vol. 2. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1940. Lawlor, Hugh J. and John E.L. Oulton. Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea: The Ecclesiastical History and the Martyrs of Palestine. Vol. 1. London: SPCK, 1927. Lee, James K. Augustine and the Mystery of the Church. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017. Leithart, Peter J. “Revelation According to the Rules.” Pro Ecclesia 23:4 (2014): 380–99. Lenski, Noel. “Imperial Legislation and the Donatist Controversy: From Constantine to Honorius.” Pages 166–219 in The Donatist Schism: Controversy and Context. Edited by Richard Miles. TTHC 2. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2018. Leo XIII. Aeterni Patris, AAS 12 (1879). In The Papal Encyclicals 1878–1903. Translated by in Claudia Carlen. Raleigh: McGrath, 1981. Lienhard, Joseph T. “Florilegia.” Pages 370–71 in Augustine through the Ages. Edited by Allan D. Fitzgerald. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Lietaert Peerbolte, Lambertus J. “The KATÉXON/KATÉXΩN of 2 Thess. 2:6–7.” Novum Testamentum 39 (1997): 138–50. Lindberg, David C. “Science and the Early Christian Church.” 74 Isis (1983): 509–30. Linke, Waldemar. “Tykoniusz i jego komentarz do Apokalipsy.” Pages 167–89 in Pierwsze łacińskie komentarze do Apokalipsy: Hipolit, Wiktoryn, Hieronim, Tykoniusz. Edited by Dominika Budzanowska and Waldemar Linke. Warszawa: Wydaw. Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego, 2011. Lobo, Alejandra G. “Reader-Response Theory: A Path Towards Wolfgang Iser.” Letras 54 (2013): 13–30. Lof, L.J. van der. “Warum wurde Tyconius nicht katholisch?” ZNW 57 (1966): 260–82. Lonergan, Bernard J.F. Grace and Freedom: Operative Grace in the Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. Edited by Frederick E. Crowe and Robert M. Doran. CWL 1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000. –. Method in Theology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007. –. “Time and Meaning.” Pages: 94–121 in Philosophical and Theological Papers 1958– 1964. Edited by Robert C. Croken, Frederick E. Crowe, and Robert M. Doran. CWL 6. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. Loriquet, Henri, ed. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France. Départements. Vol. 38. Paris: Plon-Nourrit et Cie, 1904. Lubac, Henri de. Medieval Exegesis. The Four Senses of Scripture. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1–7: A Commentary. Translated by Wilhelm C. Linns. A Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.

288

Bibliography

–. Matthew 8–20: A Commentary. Translated by James E. Crouch. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. –. Matthew 21–28: A Commentary. Translated by James E. Crouch. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. –. “The Contribution of Reception History.” Pages 123–34 in The Nature of New Testament Theology: Essays in Honour of Robert Morgan. Edited by Christopher Rowland and Christopher Tuckett. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. –. Theologische Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2014. Lyons, William J. “Hope for a Troubled Discipline? Contributions to the New Testament Studies from Reception History.” JSNT 33 (2010): 207–20. Madden, Falconer, Herbert H.E. Craster, and Noël Denholm-Young, eds. A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1937. Maier, Jean-Louis, ed. De l’avènement de Julien à la mort de Théodose Ier (361–395) in Le dossier du donatisme: Des origines à la mort de Constance II (303–361). Vol. 2. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1989. –. ed. Le dossier du donatisme: Des origines à la mort de Constance II (303–361). Vol. 1. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1987. Maldonado, Juan. “De ratione theologiae docendae. De studio theologiae.” Pages 134–41 in Miscellanea de Maldonado. Edited by R. Galdos. Madrid: CSIC, 1947. Malherbe, Abraham J. The Letters to the Thessalonians. AB 32B. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Mandouze, André. Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne (303–533). Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire. Vol. 1. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1982. Marin, Marcello. “Orientamenti di esegesi biblica dei Padri.” Pages 273–317 in Complementi Interdisciplinari di Patrologia. Edited by Anotnio Quacquarelli. Roma: Città Nuova, 1989. Markus, Robert A. Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St. Augustine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Marone, Paula. “The Use of the Term ‘Catholic’ in the Donatist Controversy,” Pomoerium 6 (2007–8): 81–91. Marshall, I. Howard. 1 and 2 Thessalonians: Based on the Revised Standard Version. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Martin, D. Michael. 1, 2 Thessalonians. NAC 33. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995. Martini, Carlo M. Le Cattedre dei non credenti. Edited by Virginio Pontiggia. Milano: Saggi Bompiani, 2015. Marxsen, Willi. Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher, ZB 11.2. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982. Mayordomo-Marín, Moisés. Den Anfang hören: Leseorientierte Evangelienexegese am Beispiel von Matthäus 1–2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Menken, Maarten J.J. 2 Thessalonians. NTR. London: Routledge, 1994. Merkt, Andreas, Tobias Nicklas, and Joseph Verheyden. “Das Novum Testamentum Patristicum (NTP): Ein Projekt zur Erforschung von Rezeption und Auslegung des Neuen Testamentes in frühchristlicher und spätantiker Zeit.” EC 6 (2015): 573–95. Metzdorf, Christina. Die Tempelaktion Jesu. Patristische und historisch-kritische Exegese im Vergleich. WUNT 2:168. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

Secondary Literature

289

Metzger, Paul. Katechon. II Thess 2,1–12 im Horizont apokalyptischen Denkens. BZNW 135. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. –. “Il Katéchon. Una fondazione esegetica.” Pages 25–39 in Il Katéchon (2 Ts 2, 6–7) e l’Anticristo. Teologia e politica di fronte al mistero dell’anomia. Brescia, Morcelliana, 2008–9. Middleton, Paul. Radical Martyrdom and Cosmic Conflict in Early Christianity. LNTS 306. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Miles, Richard. “Textual Communities and the Donatist Controversy.” Pages 249–83 in The Donatist Schism: Controversy and Context. Edited by Richard Miles. TTHC 2. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2018. Mohrmann, Christine. “Sacramentum dans les plus anciens textes chrétiens.” HTR 47 (1954): 141–52. Molien, Auguste. “Art. Simon. Richard.” DThC 14:2. Edited by Alfred Vacant. Paris: Letouzy & Ané, 1941, 2094–118. Moltmann, Jürgen. God in Creation. A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1985 [orig. pub. Gott in der Schöpfung: Ökologische Schöpfungslehre. München: Kaiser, 1985]. –. Theology of Hope. On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology. Translated by James W. Leitch. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993 [orig. pub. Theologie der Hoffnung. München: Kaiser, 1965]. Monceaux, Paul. Histoire Littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne depuis les origines jusqu’à l’invasion arabe: Saint Optat et les premiers écrivains Donatistes. Vol. 5. Paris: E. Leroux, 1920. Morgan, Jonathan. “Visitors, Gatekeepers and Receptionists: Reflections on the Shape of Biblical Studies and the Role of Reception History.” Pages 61–76 in Reception History and Biblical Studies. Theory and Practice. Edited by Emma England and William John Lyons. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Morris, Leon. The First and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. NICNT. Revised Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Moss, Candida. “Martyr Veneration in Late Antique North Africa.” Pages 54–69 in The Donatist Schism: Controversy and Context. Edited by Richard Miles. TTHC 2. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2018. Mueller, Joseph. “Christian and Jewish Tradition behind Tyconius’s Doctrine of the Church as Corpus Bipertitum,” TS 73 (2012): 286–317. Müller, Paul-Gerhard. Der Erste und Zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet, 2001. Neil, William. The Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians. MNTC. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1950. Nicholl, Colin R. “Michael, the Restrainer removed (2 Thess 2:6–7),” JThS.NS 51 (2000): 27–53. Nicklas, Tobias. Der zweite Thessalonicherbrief. KEK 10:2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019. –., Andreas Merkt, and Joseph Verheyden eds. Ancient Perspectives on Paul. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. –., and Michael Sommer. “‘Der Tag des Herrn ist schon da’ (2 Thess 2:2b) – Ein Schlüsselproblem zum Verständnis des 2. Thessalonicherbriefs,” HTS 71 (2015), 1–10 (Art. 2874 – http:/dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v71i1.2874).

290

Bibliography

–., Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, and Mikhail Seleznov, eds. History and Theology in the Gospel Narratives, Seventh East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars, Moscow September 26 to October 1, 2016. WUNT 447. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. –., and Stefan Scheingraber. “Zwischen Erwählung und Herrlichkeit: Die Ekklesia im 2. Thessalonicherbrief.” SScr 14 (2016): 150–162. Noce, Augusto Del. Il problema politico dei cattolici. Rome: UIPC, 1967. Norelli, Enrico. Ippolito. L’Anticristo. De Antichristo. Nardini: Firenze, 1987. Odahl, Charles M. Constantine and the Christian Empire. London: Routledge, 2004. O’Donnell, James J. Augustine: A New Biography. New York: HarperCollins, 2006. Oort, Johannes van. “De bello intestino: In search of Tyconius’s and Augustine’s Use of a Term.” Augustiniana 68 (2018): 125–40. –. “Tyconius’ Apocalypse Commentary, Its Reconstruction, and Its Significance for Augustine’s Doctrine of the Two Cities.” VC 72 (2018): 513–32. Pannenberg, Wolfahrt. Teologia e filosofia. Il loro rapporto alla luce della storia commune. Translated by Giuliano Sansonetti. Brescia: Queriniana, 2004 [orig. pub. Theologie und Philosophie. Ihr Verhältnis im Lichte ihrer gemeinsamen Geschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996]. Papandrea, James L. Novatian of Rome and the Culmination of Pre-Nicene Orthodoxy. PTMS 175. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011. Parris, David P. Reception Theory and Biblical Hermeneutics. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009. Pascal, Blaise. Pensieri e altri scritti su Pascal. Edited by Gennaro Auletta. Alba: San Paolo Edizioni, 1996. Pate, C. Marvin. The Glory of Adam and the Afflictions of the Righteous: Pauline Suffering in Context. Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1993. Pieper, Josef. Faith, Hope, Love. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997 (orig. pub. Lieben, Hoffe, Glauben [München: Kösel, 1986]). –. Über die Hoffnung. München: Kösel, 1949. –. “Über Verzweiflung.” In Werke in acht Bänden. Edited by B. Wald. Vol. 4. Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1996. Pincherle, Alberto. “Un sermone donatista attribuito a s. Ottato di Milevi.” Bilychnis 22 (1923): 134–48. Pitra, Jean Baptiste., ed. Spicilegium Solesmense: complectens Sanctorum Patrum scriptorumque ecclesiasticorum anecdota hactenus opera, selecta e Graecis Orientalibusque et Latinis codicibus. Vol. 3. Paris: Didot, 1855. Pollmann, Karla. Doctrina Christiana: Untersuchungen zu den Anfängen der christlichen Hermeneutik unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Augustinus, ‘De doctrina christiana.’ PBGALT 41. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1996. Popkes, Enno E. “Die Bedeutung des zweiten Thessalonicherbriefs für das Verständnis paulinischer und deuteropaulinischer Eschatologie,” BZ 48 (2004): 39–64. Pottier, Bruno. “Circumcelliones, Rural Society and Communal Violence in Late Antique North Africa.” Pages 142–65 in The Donatist Schism: Controversy and Context. Edited Richard Miles. TTHC 2. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2018. Pozzo, Luca Del. Filosofia cristiana e politica in Augusto Del Noce. Roma: I libri del Borghese, 2019. Quacquarelli, Antonio. “La concezione della Storia in Ticonio.” Pages 13–30 in Studi di Storia medievale e moderna in onore di Ettore Rota. Edited by Pietro Vaccari and P.F. Palumbo. Roma: Ed. del Lavoro, 1958. Ratzinger, Joseph. “Beobachtungen zum Kirchenbegriff des Tyconius im Liber Regularum.” REAug 2 (1956): 173–85.

Secondary Literature

291

–. Introduction to Christianity. Translated by J.R. Foster and Michael J. Miller. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004. –. Benedetto XVI. In principio Dio creò il cielo e la terra. Riflessioni sulla creazione e il peccato. Translated by C. Danna. Torino: Lindau, 2006 [orig. pub. Im Anfang schuf Gott: Vier Münchener Fastenpredigten über Schöpfung und Fall – Konsequenzen des Schöpfungsglaubens. Freiburg: Einsiedeln, 1996]. Rebenich, Stefan, and Hans-Ulrich Wiemer, eds. A Companion to Julian Apostate. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Rebillard, Éric. Christians and Their Many Identities in Late Antiquity, North Africa 200 – 450 CE. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012. Reboiras, Fernando D. Gaspar de Grajal (1530–1575). Frühneuzeitliche Bibelwissenschaft im Streit mit Universität und Inquisition. Münster: Aschendorff, 1998. Reimarus, Hermann S. “Anfänge neutestamentlicher Wissenschaft im 18. Jahrhundert.” Pages 1–23 in Historische Kritik in der Theologie. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte. Edited by Georg Schwaiger. SThGG 32. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980: 1–23. Reinmuth, Eckart. “Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher,” in Die Briefe an die Philliper, Thessalonicher und an Philemon, N. Walter, E. Reinmuth und P. Lampe, NTD 8.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Reiser, Marius. “Die Prinzipien der biblischen Hermeneutik und ihr Wandel unter dem Einfluss der Aufklärung.” Pages 65–102 in Die prägende Kraft der Texte. Hermeneutik und Wirkungsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. Ein Symposium zu Ehren von Ulrich Luz. Edited by Mosés Mayordomo. SBS 199. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005. Repphun E., et al. eds. “Editors’ Introduction. Beyond Christianity, the Bible, and the Text: Urgent Tasks and New Orientations for Reception History.” Pages 1–11 in Relegere: Studies in Religion and Reception 1:1 (2011). Riches, John. Galatians Through the Centuries. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. Ridderbos, Herman N. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Rigaux, Béda. Saint Paul: Les épitres aux Thessaloniciens. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1956. Roberts, Jonathan. “Introduction.” Pages 1–8 in The Oxford Handbook of the Reception History of the Bible. Edited by Michael Lieb, Emma Mason and Jonathan Roberts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Robinson, David. “The Anonymous Sermo in natali sanctorum innocentium. An Antecedent Witness to Tyconian Exegesis.” Thf 42 (2011): 99–117. –. “The Mystic Rules of Scripture: Tyconius of Carthage’s Keys and Windows to the Apocalypse.” PhD diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 2010. Romero-Pose, Eugenio. “Beato de Liébana y el Comentario al Apocalipsis.” Pages 275–363 in Beato de Liébana. Códice del Monasterio de San Pedro de Cardeña. Barcelona: Moleiro, 2001. –. “Ecclesia in Filio hominis (Exégesis ticoniana al Apoc. 1,13–16).” Burgense 25 (1984): 43–82. –. “El Comentario al Apocalipsis de Ticonio.” CrSt 11 (1990): 178–86. –. “La importancia de los ‘Comentarios de Beato’ en la historia de la literatura cristiana.” Comp 33 (1988): 53–91. –. “Los Comentarios al Apocalipsis de Beato.” Pages 59–108 in Volumen de estudios del facsímil del Beato de Burgo Osma. Valencia: Vicent García Editores, 1992. –. Símbolos eclesiales en el Comentario a Apoc. 1,13–3.22 de Ticonio, (Hacia la reconstrucción del Comentario donatista). Santiago de Compostela: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1978.

292

Bibliography

–. Ticonio en la historia y literatura cristiana en el Norte de África. Pages 153–81 in Africa cristiana. Storia, religione, letteratura. Edited by Marcello Marin and Claudio Moreschini. Brescia: Morcelliana, 2002. –. “Ticonio y el sermon in natali sanctorum innocentium.” Gregorianum 60 (1979): 513–44. –. “Una nueva edición del Comentario al ‘Apocalipsis’ de S. Beato de Liébana.” BollClass. 3:1 (1980): 221–51. –. “2 Tes 2,7 en la literatura donatista.” Burgense 37 (1996): 247–63. Rosen, Klaus. Julian: Kaiser, Gott und Christenhasser. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2006. Rosenberg, A.W., and H.S. Lake. “Hugo Grotius as Hebraist.” StudRos 12 (1978): 62–90. Röcker, Fritz W. Belial und Katechon. Eine Untersuchung zu 2 Thess 2,1–12 und 1 Thess 4,1–35,11. WUNT 2:262. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Samaran, Charles, and Robert Marichal, eds. Catalogue des manuscrits en écriture latine portant des indications de date, de lieu ou de copiste. Vol. 5. Paris: CNRS, 1965. Sawyer, John F.A. “The Role of Reception Theory, Reader-Response Criticism and/or Impact History in the Study of the Bible: Definition and Evaluation.” Paper presented at the SBL. San Antonio, TX, November 20–23 2004. http://bbibcomm.net/files/rowland2004. pdf. Schnabel, Eckhard J. “Wisdom.” Pages 843–48 in NDBT. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D.A. Carson, Graeme Goldsworthy, and Steve Carter. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Schuyler, English E. Re-thinking the Rapture. Travelers Rest. South Carolina: Southern Bible Book House, 1954. Shaw, Brent D. Bringing in the Sheaves: Economy and Metaphor in the Roman World. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013. –. Rulers, Nomads, and Christians in Roman North Africa. Aldershot: Variorum, 1995. –. Sacred Violence: African Christians and the Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011. Shogren, Gary S. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. ZECNT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Simon, Richard. Critical History of the Text of the New Testament: Wherein is Established the Truth of the Acts on which the Christian Religion is Based. Translated by Andrew Hunwick. Leiden: Brill, 2013 [orig. pub. Histoire Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testament: Où l’on établit la verité des Actes sur lesquels la Religion Chrètienne est fondée. Rotterdam: chez Reinier Leers, 1689]. Simonetti, Manlio. “Hilario de Poitiers y la crisis arriana en Occidente. Polemistas y herejes.” Pages 137–41 in Patrologia: La edad de oro de la literatura patrística latina. Edited by J. Quasten and A. di Berardino. Vol. 3. Madrid: La Editorial Católica, 1981. Soulen, Richard N., and Kendall R. Soulen. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. 3rd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Stanley, Christopher D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, SNTSMS 74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Steinhauser, Kenneth B. “Recapitulatio in Tyconius and Augustine.” AugStud 15 (1984): 1–5. –. The Apocalypse Commentary of Tyconius. A History of its Reception and Influence. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1987. Stendahl, Krister. “Biblical Theology, Contemporary.” Pages 418–32 in IDB. Edited by George A. Buttrick. Vol. 1. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. Strecker, Georg. Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Bearbeitet, ergänzt und herausgegeben von Friedrich Wilhelm Horn). Berlin – New York: de Gruyter, 1996.

Secondary Literature

293

Strobel, August. Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem auf Grund der spätjüdisch-urchristlichen Geschichte von Habakuk 2,2ff, NovTSup 2. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Studer, Basil. Schola christiana: Die Theologie zwischen Nizäa (325) und Chalzedon (451). Paderborn: Schöningh, 1998. Swartley, Willard M. Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women: Case Issues in Biblical Interpretation. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1983. Šagi-Bunić, Thomislaus. “Controversaria de baptismate inter Parmenianum et S. Optatum Milevitanum.” Laurentianum 3 (1962): 167–209. Talbert, Andrew R. Receiving 2 Thessalonians. Theological Reception Aesthetics from the Early Church to the Reformation. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2019. Taylor, John H. “St. Cyprian and the Reconciliation of Apostates.” TS 3 (1942): 27–46. Teitler, Hans C. The Last Pagan Emperor: Julian the Apostate and the War against Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000. –. Thiselton on Hermeneutics: The Collected Works with New Essays. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. –. 1 and 2 Thessalonians Through the Centuries. Edited by Judith Kovacs. Oxford: Blackwell, 2010. –. The Holy Spirit – in Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries and Today. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Thomas, Robert L. “1–2 Thessalonians.” Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. EBC 11. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978. Tilley, Maureen A. “Scripture as an Element of Social Control: Two Martyr Stories of Christian North Africa.” HTR 83 (1990): 383–97. –. “Sustaining Donatist Self-Identity: From the Church of the Martyrs to the Collecta of the Desert.” JECS 5 (1997): 21–35. –. The Bible in Christian North Africa. The Donatist World. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Tkacz, Catherine Brown. “Typology.” Pages 855–57 in Saint Augustine through the Ages. Edited by Allan D. Fitzgerald, John Cavadini, Marianne Djuth, James J. O’Donnell, and Frederick Van Fleteren. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Tonstad, Sigve K. “The Restrainer Removed: A Truly Alarming Thought (2 Thess 2:1–12),” HBT 29 (2007): 133–51. Trilling, Wolfgang. Untersuchungen zum Zweiten Thessalonicherbrief. EThSt 27. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1972. –. Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher. EKK 14. Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980. Tuozzolo, Claudio. Hans Georg Gadamer e l’interpretazione come accadere dell’essere. Milano: Franco Angeli, 1996. Vásquez, Morales, and Víctor Manuel. Contours of Biblical Reception Theory. Studies in Rezeptionsgeschichte of Romans 13.1–7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Vatican Council I. Dogmatic Constitution: Dei Filius. In Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. Edited by Heinrich J.D. Denzinger, 1786 (3005–7). Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 18 November 1965, AAS 58 (1966), 817–30. –. Dei Verbum, in Vatican Council II: Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations. Edited by Austin Flannery. Northport: Costello, 1996.

294

Bibliography

Veer, Albert C. De. “L’exploitation du schisme maximianiste par Saint Augustin dans la lutte contre le Donatisme.” RechAug 3 (1965): 219–37. Vercruysse, Jean-Marc. “Tyconius’ hermeneutics: The way the Holy Spirit expresses itself through Scripture.” Pages 20–48 in Patristic Theories of Biblical Interpretation: The Latin Fathers. Edited by Tarmo Toom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Vezin, Jean. “Le point d’interrogation, un élément de datation et de localisation des manuscrits. L’exemple de Saint-Denis au IXe siècle.” Scriptorium 34 (1980): 181–96. Vincent, Louis-Hugues. “Art. Lagrange, Albert-Marie-Henry.” DBS 6 (1960): 231–37. Vos, Geerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Wallraff, Martin, Umberto Roberto, and Karl Pinggéra, eds. Translated by William Adler. Julius Africanus: Chronographiae. The Extant Fragments. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Walter, Peter. Theologie aus dem Geist der Rhetorik. Zur Schriftauslegung des Erasmus von Rotterdam. TSTP 1. Mainz: Matthias Grünewald, 1991. Wanamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Warnke, Georgia. Gadamer: Hermeneutics, Tradition, and Reason. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987. Weima, Jeffrey D. 1–2 Thessalonians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Whitehouse, John. “The Course of the Donatist Schism in Late Roman North Africa.” Pages 13–33 in The Donatist Schism. Controversy and Contexts. Edited by Richard Miles. TTHC 2. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2016. Wilhite, David. E. Ancient African Christianity: An Introduction to a Unique Context and Tradition. London: Routledge, 2017. Wilkins, Jeremy D. Before Truth. Lonergan, Aquinas, and the Problem of Wisdom. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2018. Witherington, Ben III. 1 and 2 Thessalonians: SRC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Wojtyła, Karol. Segno di contraddizione. Meditazioni. Milano: Gribaudi, 2001 (orig. pub. Znak, któremu sprzeciwiać się będą. Rekolekcje w Watykanie od 5 do 12 marca 1976 [Poznań: Pallotinum]). Wuest, Kenneth S. “The Rapture – Precisely When?” BSac 114 (1957): 60–69.

jjjj

Index of References Old Testament Genesis 2:8 96 181 2:9 3 5 3:3 181 3:5 5, 39, 76, 96, 97, 98, 123, 134, 138, 168, 169, 171, 178, 180, 181, 190, 196, 219, 267, 286 76 3:15 196 18:6–19:28 19 97, 98, 134, 138, 168, 169, 171, 178, 180, 190, 267 97, 98, 168, 178 19:15–17 19:16 169 19:23–24 138, 190 19:26 169 19:29 5, 39, 76, 96, 97, 98, 123, 134, 138, 168, 169, 171, 178, 180, 181, 190, 196, 219, 267, 286 25:23 5, 39, 76, 96, 97, 98, 123, 134, 138, 168, 169, 171, 178, 180, 181, 190, 196, 219, 267, 286 Exodus 7:14–24 12:3

196 61

Leviticus 23:26 61 26:18.21.24.28 177, 197 Deuteronomy 16:8 1 Kings

61

22:23

208

2 Chronicles 7:9

61

Nehemiah 8:18

61

Psalms 8:2 50 50:17 137:9 140:5

124 196 196 151, 185 84

Ecclesiastes 3:6 4:7

139, 171 179

Song of Songs 1:7 4:12–13 4:16 5:1 6:8

86 84 136 95, 247 84

Isaiah 98, 168 1:10 1:19 39 178 11:1 5 11:4 14 5, 115, 123, 124, 151, 245, 267 5, 115, 123, 151 14:12 14:12–13 123 14:12–20 5, 151 115, 123 14:12–21 14:13–14 5, 124

296

Index of References

14:14–17 14:16 14:22–27 23:17 24:1–13 24:6 32:6 33:20 33:23 45:1 45:15 52:11 58:3 63:2 63:10

124 124 245 185 185 114 145 112 112 39 108, 126, 172 62, 179, 191, 198 124 103 245

Jeremiah 2:13 25:15–19 25:15–29 51:45

84 186 114 62

Ezekiel 9:4 14:9 22:19–21 26:15–18 26–28 27:26 27:27–36 28 28:2 28:2–3 28:2.6.9 28:12–19 28:14 28:16 28:18 28:19

193 208 192 184 182, 267 136 184 99, 262 5, 99, 115, 123, 125, 187 99, 125 5 5 163, 181, 188 188, 189 137, 138, 188, 189 115, 138

32 32:10 32:32 36:16–36 37 37:9 37:21–28 39:1–4 39:17–20

182, 267 184 184 202 182, 267 153 183 137, 187 187

Daniel 7:2–3 7:17–18 7:24–25 7:25 8:10–13 9:27 11:31 11:31.36–38 11:36 11:36–37

141, 153 141 107 5 5 148 126 126 105, 120, 126 5

Hosea 12:2–4

39

Obadiah 3:4

123

Habakkuk 2:3 3:3

149, 151 87

Zephaniah 2:13–3:5

183

Zechariah 13:8 14:11–13 14:11–16

101, 116 114 114

New Testament Matthew 2:6 2:16–18 7:8 11:2–4 11:25–27

178 75 161 246 246

13:24–43 13:28 13:39 18:18 23:25 23:27–28

106 99, 125 99, 125 177 161 147, 163

297

New Testament 23:37 192 24:2 112, 132, 168, 182 24:4 104, 121, 157 24:5 125 80 24:14 24:15 43, 105, 117, 126, 148, 161, 169, 170, 178, 179, 198, 267 43, 169 24:15–16 24:16 171, 173, 204 24:21 103, 157, 204 24:24 135, 143, 159, 161 135, 159 24:24.26 24:46.48.51 158 26:57 85 26:64 121 Mark 13:14 13:22–23

173, 204 161

Luke 2:1 4:43 10:21–22 16:8 17:28–30 17:29 17:29–30 17:29–32 21:11 21:21

178 96 246 99, 125 168 114, 134, 169, 178, 202 114, 134 169, 202 100 173, 204

John 1:14 4:3 8:21 10:30 11:40 14:6 20:26–27

107 93 209 39 108 108 162

Acts of the Apostles 7:51 96, 133, 245 166 21:21

Romans 1:20 219 1:24.26.28 208, 209 94 4:7 6:6 238 6:19 94, 130 8:9 245 224 8:29 9:32 151 9:32–33 151 11:8 208 141, 154 11:26 13:12 108, 109, 116, 117, 140, 161, 195 1 Corinthians 1:23 1:24.30 1:26–29 2:7 5:2 15:23 16:17

151 246 265 246 181 200 200

2 Corinthians 4:2 4:4 6:13–18 6:14 6:17 7:6.7 10:10 11:2 11:4 12:8 13:8

157 156 62 94, 130 62 200 200 95, 247 104 166 157

Galatians 2:4 2:5 4:4–5 5:7 5:10 14

96, 133 157 224 157 96, 133 157

Ephesians 1:13 2:5–6 2:6

157 195 3

298

Index of References

2:15 238 2:21 112, 132 4:15–16 225 4:22–24 238 106 5:13 5:30 224 6:12 96, 113, 114, 133, 134, 139, 140, 142, 143, 148, 159, 161, 171, 193, 195, 201, 206, 218, 267 Philippians 1:26 2:12 3:18 3:19

200 200 96, 113, 133 106

Colossians 1:5 1:23 2:14 3:1 3:4 3:9–11 6

157 178 181 195 3 238 157

1 Thessalonians 200 2:19 3:13 200 4:15 200 5:23 200 2 Thessalonians 2 2, 4, 6, 8, 50, 51, 52, 62, 85, 89, 91, 93, 94, 97, 103, 104, 110, 114, 119, 120, 121, 127, 128, 129, 147, 149, 156, 165, 166, 181, 182, 189, 199, 200, 206, 211, 213, 214, 280, 283, 285, 287 165, 210 2:1–2 2:1–12 5, 95, 152, 293 2:2 3 3, 289 2:2b 2:3 X, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 27, 30, 31, 42, 51, 62, 91, 92, 150, 160,

210, 211, 213, 214, 215, 216, 265, 266, 267, 268 2:3–12 X, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 27, 30, 31, 42, 51, 62, 91, 92, 210, 211, 214, 215, 216, 265, 266, 267, 268 2:7 7, 114, 130, 181, 182, 194, 195, 203, 218 2:7a 7, 16, 41, 44, 50, 51, 69, 96, 102, 109, 110, 113, 127, 128, 130, 133, 134, 137, 138, 139, 140, 143, 144, 146, 147, 152, 159, 171, 175, 176, 195, 201, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 235, 237, 240, 241, 242, 243, 246, 248, 250, 256, 258, 260 187 2:7ab 231 2:7ac 2:7b 151, 154 2:7bc 151, 186 2:9 4, 96, 104, 113, 119, 127, 133, 143, 157, 159, 160, 161, 200, 201 119 2:10 2:10a 119 2:11–12 165, 208, 209, 210 2:12 209, 247 2:13–3:5 4 3:3 239 1 Timothy 2 2:1–2 4:1 6:6 6:14

166 166 166 138 200

2 Timothy 2:19 2:20 4:1.8 4:4

166, 179 191 200 208

Titus 2:13 2:14

200 94

New Testament Hebrews 1–2 10:17

219 94

1 Peter 2:5 2:8 2:21 3:15–16 3:20

189 151 192 253 135

1 John 2:9 2:18 2:22 3:4 4:1–3 4:2 4:3 4:20 5:21 22

107, 146 93, 103, 104, 267 96, 113, 133 94 106 106 96, 103, 267 107 135 93, 103, 267

2 John 7

93, 103, 267

Jude 1:18

166

Revelation 1:12b–13a 1:13 1:13a 1:15 1:16.20 1:18 2:1 2:1a 2:1b 2:2 2:4 2:8–9 2:13 2:17 2:18–4:1 2:21 2:24 3:1 3:4–6

190 142, 191, 225 190 139, 171, 191 191 108 191 192 192 192 192 192 226 161 37 198 193 191 193

3:10 3:16 4:1 4:2.4 4–5 4:6 4:7–8 4:8 5:1 5:5 5:6 5:7 5:10 5:11 6:1–2 6:3–4 6:4 6:5–6 6:6 6:6–13 6:7–8 6:8 6:12 6:12–7:17 6:13 6:16–17 7:1 7:3 7:14 7:16–12:6 7:17 8:1 8:7 8:9 8–11 8:12 8:13 9:5.10.14 9:10.19 9:11 9:12–11:14 9:13–15 9:14 9:15 9:19–20 9:19–21 9:21 10:1 10:1–11:14

299 43, 81, 107, 126 116 154 194 139 193 142 194 40, 142 198 194 195 194 194 116 116 140, 197 108, 116, 140, 161, 194 37, 140, 195 37 100, 108, 117 43, 81 103, 203 203 167, 172 173 141, 153, 154, 155 155, 195 102 37 195 154, 205 173, 174 117 61 101, 116 195, 196 43, 81 145 156 203 103 141, 154, 155, 205 174, 205 209 209 209 154 205

300

Index of References

10:11 43, 81 11:2 102 11:3 102, 142, 205 11:3–14 142, 205 98, 168, 192, 196 11:8 11:9 198, 206 11:9b 196 11:11 102 206 11:14 11:15 205 11:18 206 11:19 154 143 12:1 12:3 126, 143 12:6 102 12:9 143 12–13 143 12:17 143, 144 13 4, 73, 101, 102, 126, 127, 144, 145, 146, 160, 162, 175, 179 95 14:3 14:6 44, 196, 197 14:6–7 44, 81, 196 14:8 175, 197 14:15 175, 176, 177 14:17 176 14:18 176 14:20 102, 176, 177 154, 177, 197 15:1 15:6 178 15:8 162

16 103, 162, 178, 179, 197, 203, 206, 209, 210 154 16:1 16:12 103, 154, 203, 206 16:12–16 203 17 109, 110, 118, 127, 146, 147, 152, 153, 163 17:1 154 17:4 163, 198 109, 110 17:10 18:4 62, 179, 191, 197, 198, 205 18:9 118 180 19:1–3 19:7 95 19:11 154 19:17–21 187 118 19:18.21 20 103, 110, 118, 155, 204, 228, 251 154 20:1 103, 110, 204 20:3 20:4–6 228 20:11 154 21 198, 199 21:2 95 180, 260 21:18 21–22 139 21:27 198 22 198, 199 199 22:1–2a

Ancient Sources Ambrose

Aristotle

De officiis ministrorum 99 2.11

Nichomachean Ethics 2.1 224

Ammianus Marcellinus

Augustine

Res gestae a fine Cornelii Taciti 78 22.5, 3–4 15–25 78

Breviculus collationis cum donatistis 59 3.13.25

301

Ancient Sources Contra Cresconium grammaticum et Donatistam 2.22.27 58

Epistula ad catholicos de secta Donatistarum 86 16.40

Contra Gaudentium donatistarum episcopum 69–70 1.28.32

Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 31 1.2 64 3.30–4 3.123 64

Contra epistulam Parmeniani 1.1.1 33, 222 1.1.1–1.2.2 6 1.11.18 70 6 2.13.31 2.8.21 83 2.11.23 83 3.3.18 72 Contra litteras Petiliani 2.23.53 72 2.105.241 99 De baptismo contra Donatistas 63 1.4.5 De civitate Dei 19.4 230 20.19.2 122

Sermo 46 15.38 16.40

87 87

Bede the Venerable Explanatio Apocalypsis 37 PL 93.133 Caesarius of Arles Exposition on the Apocalypse 38, 100 Cassian, John De incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium PL 50.188–193 34 Constantine

De doctrina christiana 3.30 33 48 3.32.45 3.33 34 3.30–37 6, 32 Epistulae 41 44.3.5 93.10.44 93.11 93.13.51 93.24 93.25 93.43–44 185.2.10 185.4.15 249

6 74 33 81 83 86 86 6 76 71 6

Aeterna et religiosa 65 Cyprian De lapsis 2 29 33 34

56 57 58 56

Testimonia ad Quirinium 97 Sententiae episcoporum de haereticis baptizandis 83 87 1

302

Index of References

Erasmus

Hilary of Poitiers

Ecclesiastes sive concionator evangelicus 3 5.1034D–1035A 23 1043B–D 23

Commentarius in Matthaeum 17.7 124

Eusebius of Caesarea De laudibus Constantini 122 7.13 Historia Ecclesiastica 6.43.2 57 10.5 62–63 10.6 63 63 10.7 Vita Constantini 1.44 65 Ex Concilio Carthaginensi PL 8.774

75

Filastrius De haeresibus 69 57.1 Flavius, Josephus Jewish Antiquities 14 120 The Jewish War 1.470 129 Gennadius of Marseilles

Hippolytus Commentarii in Danielem 122 4.49 De Christo et Antichristo 104 5–6 53 123 61.1 104 Hugo de St. Victor De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris 1.5 22 Didascalicon PL 176.791

Iohannes Saresberiensis Metalogicon 3.4.45

269

Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus haereses 5.26 80 5.25.2 122 5.25.4 104 5.28.2 103–104 Isidore of Seville Liber numerorum 1 109

Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis 31–33 18

Sententiae 1.19

Gesta apud Zenophilum frag. 19b 71

Jerome

Gesta conlationis Carthaginensis 72 1.133

34

34

De viris illustribus 93 86

303

Ancient Sources John Chrysostom In Epistolam Secundum ad Thessalonicenses homiliae PG 62.485–91 153 Lactantius Divinae institutiones 80, 153 7.25 Nicholas of Lyra Postilla super totam bibliam PL 113.31–34 34 Optatus S. Optati Milevitani libri VII 2.17 78 78 2.17–19 2.18 79 2.19 79, 83 2.2 82 2.23 83 82 2.6–9 2.8 82 3.3 72 3.4 69–70 79 4.5 4.7 84 4.9 84 6.1 83 6.3 79 6.4 79 6.5 79 6.6 71 79 6.7

In Genesim homiliae 3.7 104 96 7.2 In Ieremiam homiliae 124 12.12 De principiis 3.2.2

22

Possidius Vita Augustini 10

69

Primasius Commentarius in Apocalypsin 104 3.12 Pseudo-Cyprian De duobus montibus Sina et Sion 3.1 124 Quodvultdeus De promissionibus 34 PL 51.848 Suetonius Tranquillus De vita Caesarum 109 Sulpicius Servus Chronica 2.33

76

Origen

Tertullian

Contra Celsum 3.45 99 6.45 229

Ad Scapulam 2 2.6

Commentarii in Iohannem 104, 158 32.214

Adversus Marcionem 104 5.16

Commentarii in Matthaeum 33 104, 157

Apologeticum 1–18 32.1

80 152

240 80

304

Index of References

46

240

De baptismo 15

54

De praescriptione haereticorum 7 53 De resurrectione mortuorum 80 24 Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum 3.28

80

Tyconius Expositio Apocalypseos 45–47 115 I, 1 135, 191, 225 I, 2 142 I, 5 139, 146, 171, 177, 191–192, 233, 247 I, 7 221 I, 11 75, 192, 218, 232 I, 12 192 116 I, 14–15 I, 17 247 I, 19 116, 192–193, 232 I, 22 160, 226 116 I, 24 I, 26 161 I, 27 116, 198, 229, 249 I, 28 247 I, 30 193, 218 I, 32 225 I, 34–35 116 I, 36 193 161 I, 37 I, 39 107 I, 40 116 I, 41 43, 81, 104, 107, 126, 172, 193, 203, 218–219, 256 I, 42 135 192, 232 I, 43 I, 46 75, 223 II, 7 46, 193 II, 10 194

II, 15 142 II, 21 198, 251 II, 22 194, 224 224–225 II, 24 II, 25 225 II, 26 194 II, 32 116 II, 33 116, 174 108, 116, 140, 195 II, 34 II, 35 43, 81, 95, 100–101, 104, 108–109, 111, 116–117, 148, 161 II, 36 117 II, 37 203 II, 38 167, 172, 203 II, 39 172 172, 203 II, 40 II, 41 203 II, 43 41, 173, 177, 203–204, 225 141, 153–154, 204, 222 II, 44 II, 47 155, 195 II, 55 195 II, 56 263 II, 57 231 205, 251 II, 58 III, 2 244 III, 10 117, 173–174 III, 14 118 46 III, 17 III, 18 196 III, 20 156, 238 III, 22 41 229 III, 24 III, 35 75, 81 III, 36 156 III, 37 205 III, 38 43, 155, 205 III, 39 174 III, 39–48 205 III, 46–47 75 103, 209 III, 48 III, 49 205 III, 50 225 III, 56 244 205 III, 57 III, 60 44, 81 142, 205 III, 64 III, 66 142

Ancient Sources III, 68 46 143, 196 III, 71 III, 72 196 III, 73 142, 198, 206, 252 III, 84 206 251 IV, 1 IV, 3 180, 251 IV, 6 143 IV, 8 143 126, 143, 193, 260 IV, 9 IV, 12 251 IV, 21 142 IV, 23 144 46, 75, 101, 127, 160 IV, 25 IV, 26 127, 256 IV, 27 160 IV, 28 119 IV, 29 127, 256 IV, 30 95, 101–102, 127, 144, 174–175 IV, 37 75, 145, 162 IV, 38 145 142 IV, 39 IV, 40 75, 145, 162 IV, 42 162 IV, 43 162 146, 162, 180 IV, 44 IV, 48 95 IV, 49 46 V, 2 44, 46, 81, 197 V, 3 175, 197 V, 11 162 V, 12 176–177 V, 14 176 176 V, 15 V, 17 176–177 V, 19 XVII, 95, 102, 177 V, 22 177, 197 142 V, 24 V, 25 178 V, 28 162 V, 29 178, 225 V, 30 209 V, 31 210 229 V, 35 V, 36 226 V, 37 210 75, 162 V, 41 V, 42 162

305

V, 43 46, 162–163, 203, 206, 251 148, 178, 197, 204 V, 46 V, 47 46, 148, 179 VI, 3 147 VI, 5 146, 163, 247 163 VI, 6 VI, 7 147, 163 VI, 8 118 VI, 11 104, 110 118 VI, 22 VI, 25 179, 198 VI, 29 118 VI, 40 177, 180 224 VII, 2 VII, 3 225 VII, 9 118, 222 VII, 14 225 204 VII, 15 VII, 18 95, 103–104, 110, 204 VII, 19 46 VII, 20 251 VII, 22 251 VII, 23 205, 251 VII, 25 119 VII, 27 142 198–199, 252, 260 VII, 31 VII, 34 199 VII, 43 224 VII, 48 198 VII, 49 199 199 VII, 50 Liber Regularum Prol. 40, 41, 132, 208, 241, 243, 244, 246 47, 208, 242 I, 1 I, 3 47 I, 4.1 222 I, 4.2 224 I, 6 225 I, 7 47 I, 9 104, 121, 143, 157–158, 200–201 I, 10 105, 121-122, 126, 148, 201, 204 95, 97, 104, 247 I, 11.1 I, 12.1 224 I, 12.2 39

306

Index of References

I, 13 111, 122, 132, 167, 182, 191, 201 47, 242 II, 1 II, 9 112 II, 10 48, 261 II, 11 41, 229, 244 158 II, 12 II, 13 41, 112, 132 II, 14 112, 132 III, 4 47 245 III, 8 III, 12 47 III, 16 40 III, 20.1 113 245 III, 20.2 III, 23 113 III, 24 202 III, 25–29 123 III, 26 157 158 III, 27.1 III, 27.1–27.2 158 III, 29 95–97, 110–111, 113, 133, 158–159, 168, 201, 245 IV, 1 45, 208, 241, 243, 244, 247 IV, 2.2 45, 242 IV, 3.1 202 IV, 5 18 IV, 6 203 IV, 8.1 228 228 IV, 8.1–8.2 IV, 9.1 122 IV, 12 122, 158, 221 IV, 13.1 48 112, 183–184 IV, 13.2 IV, 14.1 48, 184, 201 IV, 14.2 113, 184 IV, 14.3 184 IV, 14.4 112 112, 185 IV, 15.1 48, 185 IV, 15.2 IV, 15.3 185 IV, 15.4 113–114, 185, 221 IV, 15.5 114, 185, 221 IV, 17 95, 98, 110, 168, 221 IV, 18 152, 185, 205, 221 IV, 19.1 45, 110, 151, 168, 185, 186, 205, 221

IV, 19.2 123, 157–158, 205 IV, 19.21 245 IV, 20.1 114, 186 134, 186 IV, 20.3 V, 1 46, 109 V, 3.1 251 V, 4.1 191 201 V, 6.2–6.4 V, 6.7 221, 247 V, 7.3 247 V, 8.1 221 122 V, 8.2 V, 8.3 135 V, 18.2 221 VI 176, 198 46, 48, 241, 243, 251 VI, 1 VI, 2 46, 163, 169, 202, 209, 247, 251 VI, 3.1 43, 46, 74, 81, 95, 98, 110, 168, 170, 175 VI, 3.2 41, 243, 251 VI, 4.1 41, 46, 104–105, 157, 159, 241, 243, 251 160 VI, 4.1–4.4 VI, 4.2 104, 106, 107, 146, 223, 225 VI, 4.2–4.4 163 VI, 4.4 104, 106, 135, 157, 159 251 VI, 8.2 VII, 1 48, 160, 242 VII, 2 123 VII, 2–7 205 VII, 3.1 123, 256 VII, 3.2 104 VII, 3.3 123, 157 VII, 3.3–4.1 158 123–124, 157 VII, 4.1 VII, 4.1–4.3 205 VII, 4.3 110, 136–137, 152, 168, 170, 184, 187, 203, 222 VII, 5.1 122, 124, 126 VII, 5.3 124 115 VII, 6.2 VII, 8 104, 125, 188, 262 VII, 8–13 187 VII, 9.1 125 125 VII, 9.2 VII, 9.2–10.1 99 95, 125 VII, 10.1

Ancient Sources VII, 10.2 209, 248 VII, 11 125 125, 137 VII, 12.1 VII, 12.2 229 VII, 13 125 VII, 14.1 96, 157 VII, 14.2 XVII, 104, 162–163, 229, 238 VII, 14.3 137, 235 VII, 15 189 157, 189 VII, 16.1 VII, 16.2 189

307

VII, 17.1 125, 159, 209, 243, 247, 262 137 VII, 17.2 VII, 18.1 137–138 VII, 18.2 110, 138, 168, 171, 189 115, 138 VII, 19 Victorinus de Pettau Commentarius in Apocalypsin 8.2 155 13.3 104

Index of Modern Authors Alexander, James A.  33, 48 Bakel, Hendrik A. van  213 Barton, John  25, 28 Beal, Timothy  20, 30 Beale, Gregory K.  2, 121, 130, 156, 166, 200 Beaver, Robert Pierce  71 Benedict XVI see also Ratzinger, Joseph 220, 223, 225, 257, 259 Best, Ernest  2, 131, 157, 166, 200, 207 Betz, Otto  149 Boxall, Ian  VII, 266 Bright, Pamela  6–8, 39, 42, 45, 63, 82–83, 86, 115, 131, 182, 213, 221, 228, 244–245, 252 Brown, Stephen G.  182–183, 280 Bruce, Frederick F.  121, 182, 207 Congar, Yves M.J.  32, 275 Crossley, James G.  20, 29–30 Daly, Robert S.J.  154 Danker, Frederick  4, 199 Dearn, Alan  67 Dobschütz, Ernst von  166, 181 Donfried, Karl P.  129 Dulaey, Martine  32–33, 39, 252, 278 Edwards, Mark  70, 83–84, 109, 275–277 Eliade, Mircea  182, 253–254 Ellicott, Charles J.  120 England, Emma  18, 20–21, 26, 28–29 Fee, Gordon D.  2, 121, 200, 207 Ferré, Alberto Methol  219–220, 262 Fishbane, Michael A.  181–182 Frame, James E.  120–121, 207 Fredriksen Landes, Paula  66, 102, 168, 250, 252

Frend, William H.C.  53–55, 60, 66–69, 72, 74–75, 78–79, 81–82, 86–88 Frey, Jörg  VII, 20, 129, 248 Fulford, Henry W.  181 Gadamer, Hans-Georg  12–15, 18–19, 27, 266 Gaeta, Giancarlo  48, 242 Gaumer, Matthew A.  55 Gaventa, Beverly R.  1, 121, 156 Giblin, Charles H.  94, 121, 148 Gillingham, Susan E.  20–21, 25, 27–29 Gillman, Florence M.  3 Green, Gene L.  129, 181 Gryson, Roger  XVII, 8, 37–39, 109, 274 Guardini, Romano  234–236 Gumerlock, Francis X.  XIX, 8, 101, 109, 274 Gunda, Masiiwa Ragies  18 Hahn, Traugott  32, 37, 229 Harding, James E.  21 Hartman, Lars  208 Hiebert, D. Edmond  208 Holland, Glenn S.  129, 150 Holman, Chalres L.  1, 93 Holmes, Michael W.  1 Holub, Robert C.  13 Hoover, Jesse A.  36, 39, 55, 64, 74–76, 80, 85, 87, 117 House, H. Wayne  166 Hughes, Kevin L.  8, 42, 47 Iser, Wolfgang  27–28 Jauss, Hans–Robert  12, 15–18 Jewett, Robert  2, 4, 199 Jones, Ivor H.  2, 253 Kaczewski, Józef  150

310

Index of Modern Authors

Kannengiesser, Charles  11, 41–42, 44–46, 49 Käsemann, Ernst  238, 257 Kaufman, Peter  64 Klancher, Nancy  13 Koester, Helmut  4, 266 Körtner, Ulrich H.J.  244 Kovacs, Judith L.  2, 45 Krentz, Edgar  4, 25 LaRondelle, Hans K.  4 Laub, Franz  2 Lenski, Noel  65–66, 71, 77 Lietaert Peerbolte, Lambertus J.  149–150 Linke, Waldemar  214 Lof, L.J. Van der  32 Lonergan, Bernard J.F.  23, 240, 249, 269 Luz, Ulrich  13–14, 19, 24, 29, 31 Lyons, William J.  18, 20–21, 26–29 Maier, Jean–Louis  67–68, 73–74, 78, 88, 277 Malherbe, Abraham J.  2, 94, 120, 130, 166, 200, 207 Marone, Paula  64 Marshall, I. Howard  2, 13, 94, 121, 157, 200, 207 Martin, D. Michael  93, 200 Martini, Carlo M.  242–243, 273 Marxsen, Willi  2 Menken, Maarten J.J.  2, 120, 200 Merkt, Andreas  VII, 11, 19, 30, 155 Metzger, Paul  148–150, 273 Miles, Richard  65–67, 70, 76, 83, 86 Moltmann, Jürgen  232, 237, 249–250, 254, 258, 260 Monceaux, Paul  32, 67 Morgan, Jonathan  28 Morris, Leon  130, 156, 166, 200 Mueller, Joseph  39 Müller, Paul–Gerhard  149, 181 Neil, William  121 Nicholl, Colin R.  149 Nicklas, Tobias  VII, 2–3, 11, 20, 30, 91–92, 111, 130, 149, 155–156, 166, 214, 269

Oort, Johannes van  38–39, 72, 233 Pannenberg, Wolfahrt  12 Parris, David P.  13, 15, 17 Pieper, Josef  255–256, 259 Pollmann, Karla  33, 41 Popkes, Enno E.  149 Pottier, Bruno  70, 72 Quacquarelli, Antonio  229, 242 Ratzinger, Joseph see also Benedict XVI   33, 48, 220–222, 238, 242 Reinmuth, Eckart  2 Rigaux, Béda  2 Robinson, David  XIX, 8, 13, 37, 39, 75, 274 Röcker, Fritz W.  4, 94, 149–150 Romero–Pose, Eugenio  7–8, 36–38, 75, 122 Rowland, Christopher  19, 45 Sawyer, John F.A.  13 Shaw, Brent D.  64, 70, 73, 88 Shogren, Gary S.  121 Steinhauser, Kenneth B.  37, 177, 251 Talbert, Andrew R.  266 Thiselton, Anthony C. 2, 5, 28, 54 Thomas, Robert L. 121 Tilley, Maureen A.  60–61, 66–68, 73, 75–76, 82–86, 278 Tonstad, Sigve K.  5, 94–95, 150–151 Trilling, Wolfgang  2, 149–150, 157 Vercruysse, Jean Marc  XVII, 32, 35, 48, 119, 245, 274 Wanamaker, Charles A.  2, 111, 130, 200, 207 Weima, Jeffrey D.  94, 111, 130, 158, 167, 209 Whitehouse, John  66 Witherington, Ben III.  2, 94, 121, 130, 200

Subject Index abomination 43, 105, 117, 126, 146–148, 161, 178–179, 198, 204, 218 Ambrose 36, 99 advent 96, 102, 104–105, 110–111, 113, 119, 121, 132–133, 144, 155, 159–160, 165, 167–168, 182–183, 199–206, 210, 248, 255, 258 adventus Domini X, 165, 199, 205 African 6–9, 12, 18, 31–32, 36, 39, 43–44, 53, 55–58, 64–66, 68, 74, 80–83, 85, 87–88, 91, 109–111, 116, 124, 143, 145, 156, 165, 175, 210, 213–215, 220–221, 224, 228, 232–234, 243, 245, 249, 251–252, 258, 262, 265, 267–268 altar 71, 78–79, 82–83, 120, 176 angel 15, 23, 27, 41, 82, 92, 99, 125, 141, 149, 153–156, 169, 172–178, 192–198, 205–206, 209, 217, 219, 221, 226, 228 antichrist (antichristus) 4–8, 42–44, 47–48, 67–68, 73–74, 76, 80–81, 85, 98–99, 102–110, 112, 114, 116, 123, 126–127, 130–131, 135, 146, 149, 152–153, 157, 159, 161, 166, 172, 180, 201–204, 223, 226–227, 229, 233, 252, 254, 267 apostasy 56–57, 68, 70, 83, 85, 93–94, 103, 111, 166, 168, 207 Babylon 5, 42, 44, 53, 99, 115, 118, 123, 147, 151, 155, 175, 179–180, 185–186, 197–198, 202, 205, 248 baptism 33, 54, 56–57, 59, 63, 81–83, 106, 124, 140, 160–161, 163, 184, 194, 199, 228, 251–252 beast 4, 55, 66, 69, 73, 78, 101–102, 118, 127, 141, 144–146, 153, 160, 162–163, 174, 179, 183, 187, 209 beautiful 48, 95, 188, 233, 235, 247, 260–261, 263, 266

beauty 137, 145, 164, 215–216, 246, 261–263, 266 belief 43, 53–54, 59, 78–80, 84, 86, 147, 157, 163, 208–209, 224, 241–242, 247, 270 bipartite 8, 33, 39, 42, 45, 47–48, 97–98, 102, 111–112, 115, 127, 131–133, 136, 139, 141, 143, 151–155, 158, 162, 164–165, 168, 176, 178–180, 182–189, 191, 193, 196, 200–201, 204, 210–211, 214–217, 220–221, 226, 229–230, 232–237, 241, 244–245, 248, 252–254, 256, 258–259, 261, 267 bipartition 9, 48, 128, 132, 153, 195, 199, 215–217, 230–233, 236–237, 239, 242, 248–250, 252, 257–259, 267–268, 270 bishop 6, 31, 33–34, 53, 55–57, 59–68, 71–75, 77–84, 87–88, 101, 140, 143, 145, 161–162, 213 blasphemy 102, 127, 144, 175 body of Christ 47, 57, 83, 85, 88, 104–105, 112, 121, 146, 155, 163, 191, 193–194, 213, 222, 224, 226–227, 229–232, 258 body of the devil 101, 106, 119, 124, 127, 144–145, 155, 160, 162, 165, 174, 177, 180, 188, 192, 203, 205, 229, 262 brothers 62, 65, 96–97, 101, 103, 105–106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116–117, 119, 123–124, 127, 133–135, 138, 140–143, 146–148, 152–155, 157–161, 164–165, 167, 170–177, 179–180, 184, 186, 189, 191, 193–198, 204, 208, 215, 219, 223–227, 229–231, 233, 246–248, 255–258, 263, 267 Caecilianists 64, 66–68, 70–74, 76–77, 79–80, 82–84, 86–87, 93, 98, 104, 112, 116, 127, 135–136, 140, 160, 165, 179, 184, 198, 214, 267–268

312

Subject Index

Cassian 34 catholic VII, XIX, 8–9, 23–24, 26, 31, 33, 43, 51–52, 54, 60–65, 69, 74, 78, 81, 86, 88, 100, 216–217, 223, 240, 269, 274, 278 catholicity 82, 165, 175, 221–223 charity XI, 215–216, 218–219, 223–224, 226–227, 231, 240, 265 Christian 1–2, 6, 19, 22–23, 30–31, 33–34, 36, 39, 41–46, 48, 50–80, 82–83, 85–86, 88, 91, 93–94, 97–98, 100, 102–104, 106, 108–110, 112, 114, 119, 123, 126, 128–131, 135, 139–140, 143–147, 149–152, 159, 162, 164, 166, 170, 172–173, 180, 186, 191, 194, 201, 203, 209, 213–216, 218–220, 222–226, 228–233, 239–241, 244–245, 248–250, 252–253, 255, 258–259, 265, 267–271, 273, 275–278 Christianity 4, 11, 20, 26, 39, 43, 51–55, 58, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 77, 80, 83, 86–88, 109, 128–129, 154, 211, 221–223, 240, 242, 250, 258, 267, 270 church X, XI, 1–2, 4–9, 16, 19, 21–22, 25–26, 29–34, 39, 41–44, 47–88, 91, 93, 95–119, 121–128, 130–149, 151–211, 213–237, 239–240, 243, 245, 247–263, 265–271, 273, 277–278 Circumcellions X, 68–72, 78–79, 81 collecta X, 38, 61, 80, 84–85, 228, 275 conflict 5, 33, 39, 43–45, 49–53, 55–56, 59–61, 72–73, 78, 80, 82, 88, 93, 97, 102, 106, 117, 133, 136, 139, 165, 174, 188, 196, 217, 246, 258–259, 278 confrontation 12, 191, 193, 214, 217, 243 constantinian X, 52, 62, 66–67 controversy 9, 51–52, 64–65, 76, 85–86, 88, 101, 106, 136, 170, 275 conversion 33, 53, 115, 136, 139, 142, 173, 195–196, 215, 218–219, 222, 227–228, 230–231, 233–235, 237, 244–247, 263, 265, 267 criticism IX, 2, 11, 13, 24–26, 28–30, 116 de medio X, 7–8, 44, 62, 107, 111, 126, 132, 137–138, 141, 151–152, 154, 167, 170–172, 177–179, 181–183, 185–191, 193–194, 196–198, 201–204, 210

death 32, 55–56, 59, 62, 65, 68, 73, 81, 93, 100, 108, 113–114, 117, 137, 181, 184–185, 205, 223, 230, 236, 238, 248 demonic 5, 100, 134, 149–150, 186 demons 1, 4, 12–13, 75, 84, 99–100, 146, 158–159, 173, 183, 193, 201, 208, 211, 223, 232, 241, 267–268 departure 9, 31, 81, 97–98, 102, 134, 139, 144, 159, 165–169, 171, 173–177, 179–180, 190, 198, 202, 217, 234, 249 destruction 3, 77, 83, 93, 96–97, 110–111, 113–119, 127, 132, 138, 142, 150, 152–153, 156, 158–159, 166, 170, 176–177, 183, 190, 200–201 devil 33, 48–49, 60, 65, 67–68, 73, 75, 78, 85, 96–97, 99–101, 103, 106, 108–110, 114–119, 121, 123–128, 131, 133–137, 140, 143–146, 155–165, 173–177, 179–180, 187–188, 190, 192, 194, 197, 201, 203–205, 209, 221, 223, 226, 228–230, 237–238, 242, 246, 248, 253, 256, 262 devil’s body 114, 116, 123, 128, 146, 157, 160, 163, 173, 180, 188, 201, 209 discessio X, 9, 52, 62, 81, 92, 97–98, 102, 133, 139, 144, 159, 165–171, 173–177, 179–182, 189–190, 204, 210–211, 226, 248, 250, 267 divine XI, 5, 32, 40–42, 45–46, 48–49, 57, 66, 75, 82, 87, 98–99, 116, 120, 130, 132, 142, 159, 172–174, 176, 186, 188, 203, 207–210, 215, 217–218, 222, 224, 227, 230–231, 233, 239, 241–246, 250, 256, 266, 268 division XVII, 48, 51–53, 57, 61, 66, 75–76, 79, 81–83, 99–101, 134–135, 164, 175, 178, 183, 197–198, 215, 217–218, 226, 232, 245, 263 doctrine 3–4, 8, 23–24, 39, 47, 54, 104, 109, 165, 214, 246, 250 Donatism 55, 63–64, 67, 71, 73, 81, 83, 85–86, 88, 136, 216, 239 Donatists 6–7, 32, 52–54, 60–61, 63–68, 70–88, 93, 103–104, 107, 112, 116, 126–127, 135–136, 139–140, 160, 164–165, 168, 170, 179, 184, 198, 214, 218, 225, 233, 267–268, 275–276

Subject Index dynamic XI, 8–9, 17, 21, 42, 52, 113, 132, 203, 217–220, 233–235, 247–248, 253, 265 ecclesial 39, 52, 75, 88, 102, 108, 202, 226–227, 237, 239 ecclesiology 7, 33, 50, 57, 77, 81, 83, 158, 211, 214, 217, 226, 268 ecumenical 223, 269–270 enemy body 95–99, 102–104, 111, 114– 115, 121, 125–126, 142–143, 145–147, 157–158, 174, 188, 201 eschatological 5, 7–8, 43–44, 46, 49, 60, 73, 80, 84–85, 95, 97–98, 102–103, 107–108, 110, 113–114, 120, 128, 130, 148–150, 156, 165–168, 170, 173, 177, 180, 183, 185–187, 189, 197, 199–202, 210, 215, 232, 234–235, 239, 248–252, 254, 257–262, 265, 268 eschatology XI, 4, 33, 54, 81, 86, 93, 102, 110, 119–120, 165, 171, 190, 208, 210–211, 214, 248–250, 252, 258, 268 eternal 76, 100, 111–112, 147, 183, 185–186, 199, 202, 204, 206, 216–217, 219, 229–230, 233, 246, 248, 250, 252, 254, 259, 261, 263 evil 3–5, 7, 9, 16, 34, 43, 48, 50, 53–55, 59, 62, 70, 76–77, 82, 96, 100, 102, 104–106, 108, 110–113, 115–119, 123–124, 127–129, 131–148, 150–165, 167–177, 179–182, 184, 186–191, 193–196, 198, 201–206, 208–209, 214–215, 217–222, 224–231, 233–240, 245–247, 254–261, 263, 265, 267 exhortation 61, 227 external VII, 34, 52, 56, 59, 93, 95, 103, 128, 140, 144, 160, 192, 198, 215, 248 faith 22, 24, 41, 46–48, 53–58, 61, 68, 89, 95, 101, 107–108, 121, 127–128, 133–134, 140, 143, 148, 150, 166–167, 178, 186, 188, 192–193, 207–208, 213–216, 223, 225, 234, 239–245, 247, 250, 254–255, 259–260, 270–271 faithful 37, 49, 55, 58, 61, 85, 99, 104, 131, 137, 145, 147, 167, 173, 188, 191, 193, 196, 202, 209, 222, 238, 266 false 3, 43, 48, 58, 82–83, 93–94, 96, 99–101, 103–108, 110–114, 116–117,

313

119–120, 126–127, 133–135, 138, 140–143, 145–148, 152–165, 168, 170–172, 174, 176–180, 184, 186, 188, 193, 195, 197–198, 201, 203–204, 207–210, 215, 227, 229, 233, 235–239, 246–248, 256, 262–263, 265, 267 Filastrius 69 filius exterminii X, 96–97, 110–111, 113, 118, 133, 158, 201 final 5, 16, 52–53, 55, 61–62, 64, 67, 74, 76, 85, 95, 102–103, 105, 110, 115, 119, 126, 131, 147, 152–153, 162, 164–165, 170–171, 173, 177, 180, 188, 190, 197–198, 200–206, 209–210, 215, 218, 220, 226, 228, 231–232, 235, 237, 248–251, 255, 257–263 fire 71, 99, 104, 114, 117–118, 138–139, 163, 169, 171, 188–192 from the midst 7, 108, 112, 126, 129, 132, 137–138, 141, 151–152, 154, 165, 170, 172, 177–178, 181–183, 186–190, 193, 195, 197–198, 201, 203–204, 218 future XI, 2–5, 8, 22, 27, 43–44, 60, 85, 101, 109–111, 114, 119–121, 127, 129, 131, 139, 142–143, 145, 148, 154, 156, 158, 161, 165–166, 168–171, 173–175, 180–183, 185, 190, 196–199, 203–207, 210–211, 214–216, 230, 245, 248–261, 263, 267–268 general 2, 18, 25, 35, 45, 93–94, 113, 120, 145, 152, 160, 162, 211, 230, 233, 245, 268 good 5, 7, 37, 40–41, 43, 48, 56, 59, 61–62, 70, 76, 105–106, 108, 110, 112, 115, 117, 119, 127–128, 131–132, 134, 136–137, 139, 145, 153, 156, 158–159, 162, 164–165, 167, 169, 172–174, 180–181, 184, 186, 188, 191–193, 196, 198, 203–204, 206–208, 213, 215–231, 233, 235–238, 240, 245–248, 252, 254–263, 265, 267, 269 grace 42–43, 45, 47, 113, 133, 135, 137, 149, 159, 171, 199, 218, 222, 227–228, 231, 233, 240, 242, 244–245, 268 growth 40, 106, 193, 196, 217, 239, 242, 256

314

Subject Index

hate 40, 74, 96, 98, 106–107, 113–114, 124, 131, 133, 146–147, 172, 179, 201, 214, 223, 236, 259 hatred 51, 64, 68, 71, 74, 77–79, 81, 98, 106, 109, 114, 128, 134–135, 143, 146–147, 159, 163, 171, 179, 201, 204, 223, 226–227, 229, 236 head XI, 47–48, 71, 78, 82–84, 97, 99, 101, 112, 114, 123, 132, 143, 146–147, 157, 160, 162–164, 172, 190, 194, 220–221, 224–228, 230, 232, 244, 254, 257, 259–260, 265 hermeneutical IX, 1, 6–8, 13, 19, 25–26, 29–31, 33–34, 36, 39–40, 42, 45, 49–50, 95, 97, 99, 102, 132, 154, 169, 186, 190, 211, 213, 237, 267 hermeneutics 9, 12–15, 17, 20, 26–31, 33, 41–48, 50, 100, 131, 178–179, 194, 216, 245, 267 hidden 12, 40–41, 49, 55, 101, 108, 116–117, 120–121, 125–126, 128, 130, 132, 135–136, 139–140, 142–143, 147, 156, 159, 161, 163, 171–173, 178, 186, 191, 194, 199–202, 204, 208, 218–219, 227, 230, 241, 244–245, 247, 250, 252, 258, 260–261, 263, 266, 271 Hilary of Poitiers 124, 135 historical IX, 6, 8–18, 21–30, 42–45, 48–49, 51–53, 60, 64, 74–75, 79, 88–89, 91–92, 97–98, 104–105, 110, 112, 114, 128, 130–131, 142, 147, 151, 164, 169, 175, 183, 202, 210, 213–214, 234, 236, 240, 249, 251, 254, 257, 261, 265–266, 268–269, 271, 277 history IX, 1, 4, 6, 9, 11–15, 17–23, 25–30, 34, 37, 43–44, 49–51, 57, 63, 65, 70, 76, 78, 80–81, 85, 88–89, 131, 133, 135, 147–148, 154, 177, 181–184, 213, 218–219, 222, 238, 242, 248–251, 253, 255, 258, 266, 269, 274, 276, 278 holiness 73, 83, 112, 131, 135, 138, 172, 188, 217–218, 229, 236 Holy Spirit 22, 41, 45, 48, 54, 82, 88, 96–97, 108, 133, 149, 173, 176, 208, 215, 218, 221–222, 226–228, 230–231, 241–246, 250–251, 270–271 homo peccati X, 8–9, 51–52, 92–93, 95, 97–103, 115–116, 125, 168, 177, 204, 211, 233, 250, 267

hope 4–6, 22, 27, 58, 113, 123, 188, 215–216, 237, 249–250, 253–260, 262, 265 hopelessness XI, 66, 255–256, 259, 265 human being 6, 8–9, 16, 31, 33, 44, 50, 52, 100, 104, 112, 128, 152, 155–156, 164, 188, 193, 211, 214–216, 223–224, 227–228, 232–239, 241–243, 245–248, 253–263, 268, 270 humility 229, 253, 270 hypocrite 61, 119, 146, 158, 160–164, 171, 174, 177, 179–180, 196, 206 identity 60, 73, 77, 80, 82, 84–85, 88, 103, 117, 145, 147, 151, 170, 203, 228, 230, 238, 263 image 21, 31, 46–47, 73, 84–85, 95–96, 100, 102, 112, 124, 126–127, 131, 134–136, 138–139, 151, 153, 158, 162, 168–169, 171–172, 177, 180–181, 187, 191, 193–194, 196, 202, 205, 209, 218, 220, 223, 225, 228, 233–234, 236–237, 239, 252, 258, 268–269 imitation 25–27, 100–101, 157 in the midst 7, 61, 69, 80, 85, 131, 135, 138, 140, 165, 182–188, 190–192, 194–197, 199, 214, 221, 229, 246, 252, 259, 267 incarnation 34, 105–107, 110, 114, 146, 200, 223, 225, 236, 249, 253–254 iniquity 3, 7, 43, 50, 81–83, 86, 109, 131, 137, 145, 161, 179, 188, 193, 204, 236 inside 7, 101, 117, 127, 134–135, 142, 147, 161, 163, 171, 183, 186–188, 192, 209, 213, 235, 243, 269 internal 10, 12, 34, 52–53, 56, 59, 72, 102–103, 139–140, 171, 192, 198, 215, 233, 248, 261–262 invisible 12, 31, 40, 47, 97, 144, 165, 191, 194, 197, 209, 216, 218–219, 221, 226–227, 245–246, 261 Iohannes Saresberiensis 269 Israel 4, 61, 99, 112–113, 132, 137, 141, 154, 166, 178, 181–184, 187, 192, 201–202 Jerusalem 24, 53–54, 95, 111–112, 120–122, 132, 139, 151, 191–192, 196, 199, 202, 240

Subject Index judgment 7, 14–15, 17, 61, 96, 103, 115, 117, 133, 153, 155–156, 164–165, 176, 180, 184, 187, 195–196, 200, 206, 210, 231, 248–249, 270 justice 4, 57, 70, 85, 102, 108, 116, 128, 132, 136, 138, 140, 175, 184–186, 190, 195, 197, 227, 255–256, 262–263, 265 kingdom 59, 61, 102, 110, 137, 141, 153–154, 183, 185, 187, 195, 214, 229, 236, 248 lawless 3–5, 94, 119, 130, 150, 156, 199–200, 207 lawlessness 3, 93–95, 110–111, 119–121, 129–130, 148, 150, 156–157, 166, 181, 199, 207 life 4–5, 8, 12, 14–15, 24–25, 31–32, 49, 51–56, 60, 62, 73, 77, 82, 88–89, 99–100, 106–109, 113–114, 125, 128–129, 140, 143, 161–162, 164, 169, 181–182, 185–186, 198–199, 214–216, 218, 222, 224–225, 227–228, 230–231, 234–236, 238, 247–248, 250, 253–258, 260–263, 265, 267, 269–271, 276 literary IX, XVII, 6, 8–10, 12–13, 15–18, 22–24, 30–31, 39, 41–42, 44, 49, 53, 68, 89, 91–92, 96, 100, 116, 123, 136, 141, 150, 210–211, 213–214, 265–267, 270 love 7, 53, 58, 64, 67, 77, 81, 86, 95, 97, 106–107, 109, 119, 128, 131, 135, 139, 143, 146–147, 152, 157–159, 163, 171, 188, 191–192, 194, 199, 201, 213, 219–220, 223–225, 227, 229, 236, 239–240, 254, 256–257, 259–260, 270 macarian X, 68, 72, 74–75, 79, 81–82, 85 man of sin 9, 95–103, 107, 110–111, 114–116, 118, 120, 122, 125–128, 131, 134, 144, 147, 153–154, 156, 159–160, 165–170, 174–175, 177, 180, 182, 190–191, 202–204, 206, 210, 214, 219–220, 227, 233, 238, 247–248, 252, 256, 258, 260 manifestation 4–5, 96, 98, 113, 133, 153, 158–159, 200–202, 205, 219, 241, 253, 258, 260–261, 266

315

martyrdom 9, 44, 51, 54–56, 59, 61, 68–69, 73–76, 84–85, 228 mediator XI, 27, 172, 218, 220–221, 224, 226, 243, 258–259 member XI, 6–7, 21, 32, 40, 48, 58, 65, 68–69, 78, 83, 92–93, 95–96, 99, 104– 107, 111–114, 116, 118, 121, 123–124, 127–128, 132–134, 138, 140, 143, 146, 148, 151–152, 157–159, 164–165, 167, 169–170, 172–173, 179–180, 184, 186, 188–191, 193, 196, 201–202, 207–208, 215, 217, 219–222, 225–234, 236–237, 239, 245, 247, 253–254, 256–257, 261–263, 265, 267, 271 membership 24, 67, 83, 93, 103, 184 mercy 58, 65–66, 173, 204 mysterium facinoris X, 7–9, 41, 44, 50–51, 69, 92, 96, 113, 128–129, 131, 133–134, 136, 138–140, 148, 152, 158, 187, 195, 201, 211, 225–227, 235, 237, 240–243, 248, 250, 256, 267 mystery XI, 3, 7–9, 16, 41, 45, 50, 82–83, 86, 96, 100, 102, 105, 110, 112–113, 127–148, 151–152, 154–157, 159, 161–164, 167–168, 170–171, 173–176, 179–182, 186–187, 189–190, 194–195, 201, 203–204, 207–208, 214, 216–218, 220, 222, 225–227, 233–234, 236–239, 246–247, 255, 258, 260 mystical 22, 40–41, 45, 47, 100–102, 109, 127, 139, 163–164, 191, 205–206, 208, 214, 226, 228, 230–231, 239, 241–247, 251, 268 nature 1, 9, 19, 28, 39, 41, 47–48, 53, 72, 95–96, 100, 111, 114, 118, 121, 128–130, 139, 155, 160, 164, 180, 182, 186, 211, 214–215, 221, 223–224, 226–227, 229–230, 232–241, 248, 253–254, 268 Nicholas of Lyra 34 north 87, 120, 187 North Africa 6–10, 32, 36, 39, 42–43, 51–53, 55, 58–61, 63–64, 66–70, 73, 75–76, 80, 82–83, 85–86, 88, 91, 98, 116, 136, 151, 175, 191, 210–211, 214, 267 obscurity 88, 157

316

Subject Index

ontological 100, 201, 234, 256, 261, 263 opposition 7, 78, 82, 95, 97, 108, 126, 175, 187, 219, 234–236, 241–242, 247, 253 orthodoxy 57, 106, 213, 270 outside 7, 50, 54, 57, 60, 65–66, 68, 75, 93, 101–103, 116–117, 127, 133–134, 142, 147, 149, 163, 177, 180, 192, 209, 213, 219–220, 232, 243, 246, 256 paradigm 26, 44, 73, 107, 170, 182, 214, 221, 233 parousia 2–5, 79, 94, 102, 149–150, 153, 156, 199 participation 143, 145, 147, 164, 221, 227, 258, 266 particular 5–6, 8, 12, 14, 18–20, 26–27, 33, 41, 43–45, 51–52, 82, 89, 91–92, 96, 112, 116, 121, 123, 138, 141, 154, 160, 168, 170, 177, 182–183, 219–220, 233, 237, 241, 249, 268 past 11, 14, 17, 19, 27, 45, 60, 77, 86–87, 89, 110, 116–117, 119, 131, 145, 165, 169, 173–175, 183, 204, 206, 215, 217, 219, 249–252, 255, 263, 265, 268 patristic VII, 11, 19, 30, 34, 37, 44, 48, 219, 245 pedagogical XI, 7, 102, 119, 165, 201, 210, 218, 249–250, 258, 267 perdition 101, 111–112, 115–119, 127, 131, 133, 256 performative IX, 12–13, 18, 30–31, 91–92, 213, 267 persecution X, 4, 9, 43–44, 51, 55–60, 62, 65–68, 70, 72–77, 80–82, 85, 98, 103, 107–108, 110, 116, 118, 128, 131, 134–135, 137, 142–144, 147, 155, 166–167, 170, 172–173, 176–177, 180, 184, 190–191, 196, 201, 203–206, 209–210, 248, 250–252, 257–258, 260, 278 perseverance 48, 135, 151, 167 pneumatological 41, 245 Possidius 69 power 3, 5, 48, 53, 57, 59, 61, 70–72, 78, 96, 100–101, 103, 113, 115, 117–119, 126–127, 133, 140, 144–145, 150, 153, 155–156, 159–162, 176–177, 191–195,

201, 203–204, 207–210, 218, 225, 228, 230, 240, 246, 256, 258, 261, 268 prefiguration 165 present XI, 3–10, 12–15, 17–18, 20, 24, 26, 30, 32, 34, 37–38, 41, 44–46, 48–49, 51–53, 56, 60–63, 66–69, 72–73, 75–76, 81, 85, 87–89, 92, 95–105, 110, 112–120, 122–132, 134, 137–146, 148, 151, 153–155, 158, 160, 162–165, 168–191, 194–199, 203, 206–208, 211, 213, 217–219, 222, 224, 230, 234–237, 239, 241–242, 244–245, 247–263, 265–270 pride 96, 99, 115, 123–124, 127–128, 133, 218, 256 process IX, 5, 8, 12, 14–18, 20–21, 23, 27, 30–31, 43, 51, 57, 89, 92, 119, 156, 164–165, 169, 189, 200–201, 213, 218, 222–224, 226–227, 230–233, 235, 240, 246–247, 255, 257–263, 266–267, 269 processual XI, 217 productive IX, 12, 15, 17–18, 30–31, 213, 216, 254, 260, 267 profane XI, 40, 52, 182, 221, 253–254, 259–260 prophecy 1, 7, 40, 43–44, 80, 84–85, 98, 110–111, 120–121, 130, 150, 169, 171, 173, 183–185, 190, 202, 204, 208, 251 Pseudo-Cyprian 124 punishment 70, 72, 76, 113, 174, 176–177, 184–185, 188, 196, 206, 209–210, 237 pure 20, 24, 32, 52, 54, 61, 70, 79, 82–85, 95, 103, 106, 137, 170–171, 173, 179, 215, 218, 233, 235, 259–260 reason 14–15, 21, 23–24, 43–44, 46–47, 51, 56, 64, 72, 77–78, 89, 92–93, 96, 98, 123, 128, 133, 142, 150, 157–158, 167, 170, 178, 180, 193, 197, 208, 215, 217, 219–220, 237, 239–245, 247, 255, 263, 265–266 recapitulation 33, 45–46, 60, 98, 103, 110, 154, 163, 169–170, 173, 175, 203, 205–206, 251, 255 reception IX, 1–2, 5–6, 8–9, 11–13, 15–22, 26–31, 37–39, 49, 51–52, 91–92, 97, 104, 118, 127, 140, 147,

Subject Index 149, 153, 165, 177, 210–211, 213–214, 216, 265–269 relationship 1, 16–19, 21, 28–29, 68, 71, 77, 81, 88, 100, 102, 119, 167, 171, 216–217, 231, 235, 237, 239–240, 242, 244, 246, 255, 258, 268 remnant 77, 80, 85, 164, 168, 184, 202, 210, 222 repentance 7, 47, 56, 58, 116, 119, 150, 155, 173, 196, 228–229 restrainer 5, 130, 148–151, 181 restraining 142, 148–149, 152–153, 181 rhetoric 28, 39, 42, 45, 64, 97, 111, 149, 168, 206, 251 right 5, 16, 19, 24, 28–29, 36, 48, 50, 53, 56, 78, 82, 98–99, 106, 112, 122, 134, 138, 146–147, 152, 158, 163, 166, 168, 174, 176, 179–180, 183–184, 186–187, 192–193, 200, 216, 219–220, 229–230, 235, 237, 239, 241, 250, 256, 263, 268, 271 righteousness 66, 77–78, 112–113, 118, 138, 156, 190, 192, 197, 203, 207, 210, 229 rule XIX, 6–7, 22, 28, 31–36, 39–50, 58, 60, 62, 70, 80–81, 83–84, 95–97, 100–102, 104–105, 107, 110, 114–115, 122–123, 126–127, 131–139, 142–143, 146, 151–152, 157, 159–160, 163, 168–169, 172, 178, 182–184, 187, 190–191, 200–202, 205, 208, 213, 221, 233–234, 239, 241–247, 251–252, 256, 262, 268, 273–274 sacrament 33, 68, 82–83, 140–141, 161, 194–195, 220–221, 226, 254 sacramental 54, 140, 163, 220–221 sacred XI, 11, 41, 52, 59, 64, 68, 70–73, 79, 88, 129, 181–182, 184, 220–221, 239, 243–244, 253–254, 258–260, 268 salvation 4, 42–43, 49, 57, 97, 99, 113, 115, 119, 125, 128, 140, 150, 183, 202, 221–222, 224, 229, 242, 256 Satan X, 3–4, 55, 66, 70, 94, 96, 110–111, 113, 119, 123, 129, 133–134, 151, 155–160, 186, 192, 200–201, 205, 207, 226

317

schism 7, 33, 36, 51, 57–58, 63–67, 70, 76, 81–84, 86, 88, 116–117, 165, 170, 173, 175, 192–193, 232, 268, 278 Scripture(s) XI, 1, 4, 6–7, 15, 20–25, 28–31, 33–34, 36, 39–42, 44–50, 57–60, 76, 82, 84, 91–92, 98, 109–110, 112–114, 119, 127, 129, 131–134, 137, 139, 144, 147–148, 151, 164–165, 169–170, 172–173, 181, 185–186, 189–190, 192, 202–203, 206, 208, 211, 213, 217–218, 227, 231, 239–241, 243–247, 250–252, 263, 266–268, 270–271 second advent 200–203, 205–206 secret 40, 44, 96–97, 103, 128–129, 131, 133–134, 137, 148, 156, 174, 182, 187, 194, 208, 246 separation 7, 9, 51, 61–62, 72, 80, 82, 85–86, 88, 92, 95, 98, 115, 119, 123, 129, 131, 152, 162, 164–165, 167–170, 172–173, 175–177, 179–180, 186, 188–189, 191, 196–201, 203–204, 206, 210, 214, 220, 226, 229–231, 235, 240, 248, 250, 252, 257–263, 267 sign 3, 6–8, 15–16, 25, 27, 39, 41–42, 48–49, 51, 53, 58, 64, 67–68, 73, 76, 80, 83, 87, 91, 93–94, 96–98, 102, 104–107, 110–113, 116–117, 119, 121, 123–124, 128, 130–131, 133–135, 141–143, 146–147, 151, 155–163, 165, 170, 172–173, 177, 180, 182, 191, 194–199, 201–202, 204, 206, 222–223, 228, 231, 237–238, 241, 243, 246, 250–253, 260, 263, 265, 267, 270 sin XI, 1–3, 9, 11, 13, 15–16, 21, 26, 32–33, 36, 38–40, 42–44, 46, 48, 51, 54–55, 57–58, 62–65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75–77, 79–80, 82–83, 85–86, 88–89, 91–92, 95–105, 107–111, 113–131, 133–134, 136–142, 144–147, 152–175, 177–180, 182–185, 187–193, 195–198, 200–210, 213–215, 217–222, 225–227, 230, 233–244, 246–250, 252–256, 258–262, 266–268, 270 sinner 57, 62, 83–85, 98, 113, 208, 218, 225, 229 sisters VII, 97, 194, 215, 219, 223–227, 229–231, 233, 246–248, 255–257, 263, 267

318

Subject Index

slavery 25, 85, 133, 201, 237–238, 247 south X, XIX, 81, 86–87, 136, 166, 183–184, 187 spiritual XI, 2, 8, 20, 22, 33, 41–42, 44–46, 49–50, 54–56, 60, 69, 79, 83, 96–97, 102–104, 106, 111–117, 119, 122, 124, 128, 131–134, 136, 138–139, 141–145, 151–155, 159–162, 164–165, 170, 179, 183, 185–186, 188–189, 191, 193–199, 201–203, 206, 209, 211, 216, 218, 220–224, 226–231, 233–234, 239–240, 245, 247–248, 250, 252, 257–258, 260–263, 265, 267–268 spiritually 3, 45, 82, 98, 104, 110, 114, 116–118, 151, 157–158, 168–169, 174, 179–180, 185, 187, 189, 192, 194, 196, 198, 221, 227, 230, 232, 245, 252, 254, 256, 258–260, 263 Suetonius Tranquillus 109 suffering 4–5, 56, 76, 126, 128, 136, 150, 152, 164–165, 187, 191–192, 194, 214, 227, 229, 234, 237, 250, 257, 270 supernatural 23, 156, 219, 225, 229, 239 synecdoche 45, 95, 99, 102, 109, 121, 142, 181, 206, 216, 223, 237, 242 temporality XI, 9, 33, 44, 52, 215, 248–249, 253–255, 257–260, 270 theological IX, XIX, 2, 5–6, 8–10, 12–13, 15–16, 18, 30–33, 42, 44, 47–49, 52, 81, 84, 88, 92, 97, 104, 109, 121, 147, 149, 165, 211, 213–216, 220, 223–224, 227, 232, 235, 239, 243, 246, 249, 261, 265–268 theology VII, 1–2, 4–5, 8, 12, 19, 26, 30, 32, 55, 80, 83, 91, 120, 133, 136, 147, 149, 157, 165, 210, 213–217, 223, 226, 232, 243–244, 249–250, 254, 258, 260–261, 268–269 Theophilus of Antioch 80 traditores 58–59, 61, 70, 73, 82–83, 87, 106 transformation 12, 18, 31, 186, 218–219, 222–223, 228, 233, 253, 258–259 transformative 12, 18, 31, 185, 218–219, 222–223, 228, 233, 253, 258–259 transformative IX, 12–13, 15, 17–18, 30–31, 51, 104, 213, 267–268

treasure 40–41, 47, 137–138, 191, 208, 235, 241, 244–247, 271 tribulation 139, 142, 166, 171, 176, 196, 228, 252, 257 truth 3, 13–15, 18, 23–24, 27, 40–41, 46, 50, 58, 75, 82, 84–85, 97–98, 103, 105–107, 110, 112, 114–115, 118–119, 130, 132–135, 138–139, 145–147, 152, 157–160, 163–165, 169, 172–174, 176, 186, 192, 195, 199, 202–203, 207–209, 215–216, 225, 233–234, 236–239, 242, 244–247, 249, 257, 261–263, 265–266, 268–271 typology 6, 8, 42 unbelievers 58, 132, 207–208, 259–260 unfaithful 49, 58, 131 union XI, 57–58, 61, 63–64, 73, 78, 82– 83, 115, 124, 147, 216, 218, 222–226, 228, 254, 256–257, 259, 261, 263 universal XI, 63, 65, 149, 165, 168, 179, 187, 198, 217, 220–224, 244 universality 42, 222 violence 51, 64, 66, 68, 70–72, 76, 79, 81–82, 84, 88, 98, 128, 131, 135–136, 145, 147, 156 visible 12, 54, 57, 70, 93, 128, 131, 134, 164, 190, 193, 196, 198, 201–202, 208, 213, 216, 219, 221–222, 226–227, 230, 246, 252, 257–261 war XI, 2, 13–17, 20–21, 24–25, 28, 32, 46, 50, 55, 60–62, 64, 67–69, 72–73, 76–79, 85, 87, 89, 93, 97, 99, 104, 106, 112–113, 115, 119–120, 123, 127–129, 132–136, 139, 141–142, 144, 147, 151, 154–156, 161–163, 165, 171, 173, 175, 179, 182, 184, 186, 188, 192, 196, 198, 206–208, 210, 214–221, 224–234, 236–237, 240–243, 246–248, 250–253, 255, 258–260, 263, 265–267, 269, 276 warning 20, 42–43, 98, 125, 157, 173, 180, 190, 195, 211, 227, 255 wholeness 9, 41, 47, 131, 191, 233 wicked 3, 5, 48, 65, 108, 124, 128, 134–135, 141, 152, 154, 156, 193, 198, 204, 206, 218–219, 252

Subject Index wickedness 65, 96, 113, 131, 133–135, 138–143, 145, 159, 161, 171, 193, 195, 201, 206, 218, 226, 247, 252 will 42, 94, 113, 131, 141, 145, 155, 158–159, 162, 172, 176, 188, 200, 219, 223, 226–227, 229–231, 240, 245–246, 254, 256 wisdom VII, 6, 41, 45, 100, 153, 170, 172, 180, 207, 209, 218–219, 245–248, 263, 269

319

world 2, 5–6, 10–11, 13, 16–18, 25, 30– 31, 33, 39, 43, 50–54, 56, 58–60, 68, 70, 73–76, 79–81, 84, 88–89, 91–93, 95, 98, 100–102, 105, 107, 109–110, 115–118, 126–130, 141, 151–154, 156, 159–161, 164–165, 168–171, 175, 180–182, 184–186, 188–190, 193, 197, 201–203, 209–211, 213–214, 218–222, 226, 229, 238–239, 242, 247–250, 252–253, 257–258, 260, 262, 266–270 wrath 58, 78, 114, 149, 173, 177–178, 186, 190–192, 197, 206, 209–210