Hypotyposeis

Judas Ointment and Christ

There will shortly be available an English translation by Yancy Smith of On the Song of Songs by Hippolytus. Until then we must make do with the Latin translation by Garitte. (This is a translation into Latin of a Georgian text translated from an Armenian version of a Greek original.)

Chapter 2 of On the Song of Songs discusses Song of Songs 1:2-3 with particular attention to the significance of the references to ointment (which Hippolytus applies to Christ). There is an interesting passage about Judas which is the earliest surviving example of an idea later found much more widely, e.g. in the Golden Legend. The idea of a connection between the suggestion that the ointment poured by the woman over Jesus should have been sold instead for 3oo pence, and the betrayal of Christ by Judas for 30 pieces of silver. This passage provides a good example of the intertextual exegesis with which Hippolytus handles New Testament passages in this commentary. An intertextual exegesis which is nearly but not quite full-blown allegory. I am going to post my attempt at a translation of Garitte's Latin. NB My grasp of the Latin may sometimes be a little shaky, and, at least as important, the Latin itself is at several removes from the original Greek.

This ointment Judas hated and sold Christ for thirty denarii on account of this, crying out saying, "For what reason this waste of this ointment ? It should have been sold for three hundred denarii." This saying shows us O men a certain type. Now what was that ointment if not itself Christ ? Were we not before the passion instructed through the denarii of the cost of the passion ? In the passion a sale for thirty denarii is arranged. For worthy indeed was the truth when for a cheap price sold and when the poor were yet easily able to acquire it. And so it was esteemed.

Comments: 0 #

Academic Blogging: Publication or Service?

A friend of mine at the annual meeting of the North American Patristics Society (NAPS) reported that a speaker at a session on scholarly publishing observed that blogging tended to count more as service instead of publications for one’s academic career (read: tenure and promotion). On the face of it, this observation seems plausible--one’s web work does count, but not as a replacement for publishing. My questions are: is this really the case? and is this a good way to evaluate the role of blogging in conjunction with one’s academic career?

As for me, I mentioned blogging on my grad school application in 2006. I figured that blogging was well enough developed not to be viewed as a net negative (unlike, say, discussing how much time you’ve invested into World of Warcraft) and that any reasonably diligent admissions committee should easily be able to find my internet presence.

UPDATE: See Opus Imperfectum’s post on this topic: Publishing For Dummies: Blogging as Research/Teaching/Service? (May 25, 2009) for a fuller treatment.

MORE: See Mark Goodacre, Academic Blogging: Publication, Service or Teaching? (May 25, 2009), reminding us about the “teaching” portion of the triad; Jim West, Blogging: To What End? (May 26, 2009), broadening the question beyond academic issues; and Mark Goodacre, Why blog? (May 26, 2009), following up.

Those who read Portuguese will appreciate Airton José da Silva, Um blog é uma ferramenta democrática (May 26, 2009).

SEE ALSO: Rafael of Verily, Verily, digital scholarship (May, 27, 2009), linking to an InsiderHigherEd.com article by Scott Jaschik, Tenure in a Digital Era (May 26, 2009).

EVEN MORE: Tim Bulkeley, Should blogging count for academics? (May 28, 2009), answers his own question as follows:

Should blogging "count"? I do hope not, because if it does, I'll need to produce "n" posts a year, and remove from Sansblogue any posts I fear will not meet the approval of some committee. If blogging starts to "count" then the biblical blogsphere will become a mass of turgid, safely academic, posts full of language designed to impress rather than to communicate, relieved only by the amateurs - used in it's deep sense of someone who undertakes an activity for love rather than payment - and the outsiders.

Labels: Blogging, Scholarship

Comments: 6 #

Christian Allegory of the New Testament

It is generally and correctly accepted that, although (some form of) allegory of the Old Testament goes back to the very beginnings of Christianity (see Paul's allegory of Sarah and Hagar and their sons in Galatians 4:21-31), the allegorical interpretation of the New Testament develops later.

It is clear that Heracleon in his Commentary on John in the late 2nd century CE treats the Gospel in a radically allegorical way and other examples could be found in other Gnostic writers. The history of allegorical interpretation of the New Testament by orthodox writers is, however, less clear or more disputed. Origen in the 3rd century CE obviously allegorizes the New Testament, but there is disagreement about whether earlier orthodox writers do so. I am going to suggest that one cause of the disagreement among modern scholars results from differences in what is meant by allegory.

Hanson in his excellent study of Origen Allegory and Event p. 119 criticises Grant for claiming, in The Letter and the Spirit p. 89, that Clement of Alexandria does not allegorize the New Testament. Hanson would include Irenaeus and Hippolytus as well as Clement among New Testament allegorists before Origen. Grant may have retreated in his later work from this position about Clement of Alexandria, but the original disagreement between Hanson and Grant seems to involve a difference in terminology.

For evidence of the allegorical interpretation of the New Testament by Irenaeus and Clement, Hanson refers to the Christological interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan by Irenaeus in Against Heresies book 3 (Wherefore we have need of the dew of God, that we be not consumed by fire, nor be rendered unfruitful, and that where we have an accuser there we may have also an Advocate, the Lord commending to the Holy Spirit His own man, who had fallen among thieves, whom He Himself compassionated, and bound up his wounds, giving two royal denaria; so that we, receiving by the Spirit the image and superscription of the Father and the Son, might cause the denarium entrusted to us to be fruitful, counting out the increase [thereof] to the Lord) and by Clement in Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved ? (Who else can it be but the Saviour Himself? or who more than He has pitied us, who by the rulers of darkness were all but put to death with many wounds, fears, lusts, passions, pains, deceits, pleasures? Of these wounds the only physician is Jesus, who cuts out the passions thoroughly by the root,-not as the law does the bare effects, the fruits of evil plants, but applies His axe to the roots of wickedness. He it is that poured wine on our wounded souls (the blood of David's vine), that brought the oil which flows from the compassions of the Father, and bestowed it copiously. He it is that produced the ligatures of health and of salvation that cannot be undone,-Love, Faith, Hope.) These are clearly allegorical interpretations but they are allegorical interpretations of reported speech, and reported speech of a clearly non-literal kind. Modern readers will (probably correctly) find this type of interpretation of the parable unconvincing, but it has no tendency to minimize the significance of the Gospel account as literal history. These interpretation are based on what Jesus is reported to have actually said although they suffers from an anachronistic understanding of what Jesus might have meant. Similar considerations probably apply to Hippolytus in his Commentary on the Song of Songs where Jesus' (metaphorical) reference to Herod in Luke 13:32 Go and tell that fox is interpreted on the basis that scriptural references to foxes actually refer to heretics.

Heracleon's interpretation of the passage in John 4:46-53 where Jesus heals the nobleman's son, (The nobleman is the Demiurge etc), much more radically undermines serious concern with historicity. We find similar interpretations of the Gospel narratives in Origen see for example the Commentary on John Book 10 in which the cleansing of the temple is interpreted as referring to the casting out of spiritual evils by Jesus (But it may also be the case that the natural temple is the soul skilled in reason, which, because of its inborn reason, is higher than the body; to which Jesus ascends from Capernaum, the lower-lying place of less dignity, and in which, before Jesus' discipline is applied to it, are found tendencies which are earthly and senseless and dangerous, and things which have the name but not the reality of beauty, and which are driven away by Jesus with His word plaited out of doctrines of demonstration and of rebuke, to the end that His Father's house may no longer be a house of merchandize but may receive, for its own salvation and that of others, that service of God which is performed in accordance with heavenly and spiritual laws. The ox is symbolic of earthly things, for he is a husbandman. The sheep, of senseless and brutal things, because it is more servile than most of the creatures without reason. Of empty and unstable thoughts, the dove. Of things that are thought good but are not, the small change.) Origen combines this interpretation with a degree of scepticism about the historicity of the narrative. It is this preparedness to wholeheartedly allegorize the Gospel narrative as such, that does not appear to be found in orthodox writers before Origen.

Hence Grant was IMO correct to claim that in spite of (or because of) the Gnostic precedent, orthodox Christian writers refrain from serious allegorizing of New Testament narratives until the time of Origen.

Comments: 0 #

Secret Mark Session at SBL 2009

There is going to be a session on Secret Mark at this year's annual meeting of the SBL (see program book), devoted to Peter Jeffery's book, The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled; Imagined Ritual of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery.

Participants include: Peter Jeffery, Princeton University; Robin Jensen, Vanderbilt University; Donald Capps, Princeton Theological Seminary; J. Ellens, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor; and Raymond Lawrence.

It should be interesting.

Labels: SBL, Secret Mark

Comments: 1 #

One Step Forward and Another One Back: The TNIV on Luke 2:7c

The final clause of Luke 2:7c, διότι οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι, has often been mistranslated as “because there was no room for them in the inn” (so NIV and many others). As scholars have often been pointing out, in this context it is unlikely for several reasons that κατάλυμα means “inn” but rather should be “guest room.” Thus, it is not the case that Joseph and Mary were denied a place to stay in the inn, but that where they were staying (cf. v.6) was too small to accommodate the birth and new baby. There was no place in their accommodations for all three of them. While Matthew has an infancy narrative fit for a king, Luke on the other hand chooses to emphasize Jesus’s impoverished beginnings.

The TNIV’s rendition of Luke 2:7c is “because there was no guest room available for them.” To be sure, this represents an improvement over its predecessor in one respect: rendering κατάλυμα as “guest room” instead of “inn.” Inexplicably, however, it still succumbs to the old imagery of the Christmas pageants by saying that there was no guest room available for Joseph and Mary. That is not what v.7c says. It says that there was no place in the κατάλυμα for them, not that there was no κατάλυμα for them.

One step forward, and another one back.

Labels: Luke

Comments: 3 #

New Partitions for Second Corinthians

The latest issue of the Journal of Kerygmatic Ecclesiology (which, as we remember, is mainly focused on Pauline Christianity) has a fascinating article by two scholars at Chicago detailing papyrological evidence in favor of partitioning 2 Corinthians.

As everybody knows, the tone changes drastically in the final four chapters of 2 Corinthians, and vv. 6:14-7:3 (about yoking with unbelievers) looks like an obvious interpolation, leading many scholars to conclude that 2 Corinthians was not originally a unified letter at all but rather multiple letters that had been stitched together to create the canonical letter we have today. Partition theories are very good at solving exegetical problems in the canonical letter, including Paul’s changes in tone, the notices about Titus, and the Paul’s activities toward the collection. The biggest obstacle for partitioning 2 Corinthians, however, is the lack of any manuscript evidence in favor of it.

This now has changed. Two fragments of Paul’s correspondence to the Corinthian church have now been found among some previously unidentified papyrus fragments and ostraka being conserved at Chicago University.

The first fragment, identified by Dr. Franz Dietrich Butz, consists on the recto side what is now 2 Cor 12:16-21, which begins with Πάλιν λέγω, μή τις με δόξῃ ἄφρονωα εἶναι, “Again I say, let no one deem me a fool.” Confirming that this fragment actually was from Paul, there is on the verso side a signature with the name “Paul” and a date, the Kalends of Αρτεμίσιος, which is an Ionic lunar month suggesting a date in late March or early April.

What’s interesting about the text is that it lacks the word ὡς in v.21, solving a real exegetical quandary there because critics could not figure out what that word is doing in that sentence: κατὰ ἀτιμίαν λέγω, ὠς ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἠστενήκαμεν, “Shamefully I say (as if?) that we had been weak.”

Even better is that the missing word, ὡς, was found (by Dr. Margaret Musso), on an ostrakon, written in the same hand as the previous fragment. This shows that it too was written by Paul. Musso has determined that this was Paul’s answer to the offender in 1 Cor 5 who asked Paul that, since he could not longer sleep with his father’s second wife, whether her younger sister was acceptable. Paul’s answer was a single word scratched on the pottery sharp: ὡς meaning “as if!” Musso further surmises that this word must have been interpolated into the middle of what is now 2 Cor 12:21, thereby causing that tortuous syntax.

The full cite to the article is: Franz Dietrich Butz and Margaret Musso, “Paul’s April ‘Fool’ Letter,” JoKE 42 (2009) 12-21.

Labels: Humor

Comments: 7 #

Naber on Gal 4:25a

In the 19th century, Samuel Adrianus Naber (1828-1913) thought that Gal 4:25a was an obvious interpolation. From S. A. Naber, “ϒΠΕΡ ΤΑ ΕΣΚΑΜΜΕΝΑ,” Mnemosyne n.s. 6 (1878): 85-104 at 102:

LI. Numquam vidi interpolationem stultiorem quam ea est, quae invenitur in Ep. ad Gal. 4. 25. Sermo est de utroque testamento. Αὗται γάρ εἰσι δύο διαθῆκαι, μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα, ἥτις εςὶν Ἄγαρ. Allegoria, nam ipse Paulus allegoriam appellat. intellectu facilior est quam elegantior. Veteris Testamenti exemplum Ismael est, ex ancilla susceptus, Novi autem Testamenti Isaac, qui ingenuus erat, quem ingenua mulier pepererat. Sed asinus quidam adscripsit: τὸ δὲ Ἄγαρ (deest hoc nomen in Codice Sinaitico) Σινᾶ ὄρος εςὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ. Narrant interpretes Agar esse nomen montis in Arabia. Fabula. Nunc certe magni facienda auctoritas librarii, qui codicem Sinaiticum exaravit. Numquam is quidquam inaudivit de monte Agar; scripsit enim simpliciter: τὸ δὲ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐςὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ, quae praeclara adnotatio iis praesertim utilis esse debuit qui ipsum montem incolebant, in quo ille liber repertus est.

51. I have never seen an interpolation more stupid than that which is found in Gal 4:25. The discourse is about each covenant. [For these are two covenants, one indeed from Mt. Sinai born into slavery, which is Hagar]. Allegory. Now Paul himself calls it allegory. It is easier, rather than more sophisticated, to understand. The Old Testament example is Ishmael, begotten from the handmaid, but the New Testament, Isaac who was freeborn whom a freeborn woman bore. But a certain jackass added: [now “Hagar” (this name is missing in Codex Sinaiticus) is Mt. Sinai in Arabia]. Interpreters says that Hagar is the name of a mountain in Arabia. Hogwash. Now much is certainly to be made of the authority of the copyist who penned the Sinaiticus codex. He has never heard anything of a Mount Hagar; for he simply wrote: [now Sinai is a mountain in Arabia], whose excellent annotation ought to be especially useful for those who inhabited this mountain, on which this book was discovered.

Thanks to the folks at B-Latin for help with the Latin of one of the sentences.

Labels: Gal, Textual Criticism

Comments: 6 #