No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Two Problems in Melito's Homily on the Passion
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 August 2011
Extract
Even at the cost of a slight delay to the publication of the Homily on the Passion, it has seemed prudent to submit to the readers of this Review two problems arising out of Melito's language, which are not without their difficulties. If the view here taken about the first of these is open to other objections than those which the writer has anticipated, he will be grateful to any reader who will call them to his attention. As to the second, it is likely that Hebrew and patristic scholars may be able to add further illustrations. Such contributions will be most welcome.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1938
References
1 Mr. A. D. Nock has already earned my thanks by bringing to my notice some out of the way material. — The edition of the Homily will appear in Studies and Documents. A preliminary article was published in Mélanges Cumont 107–119 (Annuaire de l'institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales et slaves, IV, 1936), and a summary of further studies of the homily is to be printed in the forthcoming Proceedings of the Congress of Papyrology held at Oxford, 1937.
2 μυστήριον is probably used here not merely because the Passover rite was a cult act belonging to a limited group, but also because the language that describes its institution bore an inner meaning with reference to the sacrifice of Christ.
3 I have found the following instances of διασαϕεῖν governing objects meaning a saying or the Law or the Scriptures, with the aid of Thackeray-Marcus, Lexicon to Josephus, and Stählin's Index to Clement of Alexandria: Jos. Ant. 5, 293; 12, 38 and 108; Clem. Paed. Vol. I, p. 97, 5 Stählin; 178, 18; Strom. Vol. II, p. 490, 10–11; 494, 29; 496, 22–23; 466, 2–3.
4 Two other views of this passage which might conceivably occur to a reader may be mentioned, but only to remove them from further consideration. (1) If we had in the text of Melito τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦ μυστηρίου, we might suppose that the phrase was equivalent to “the matter of the mystery,” by a Hebraism which occurs both in the Old and in the New Testament; but in this locution, as far as I have observed, the singular ῥῦμα is always used, the plural never. (2) διασεσάϕηται cannot be treated as middle, with ῥήματα as subject and the πῶς clauses as dependent questions. L. and S. cite as a dubious use of the middle a Paris papyrus fragment (it is really no. 1564 B, Notices et Extraits 18, 2, p. 413), but the context is uncertain, owing to mutilation, and it should not be used as evidence.
5 I Apol. 67.
6 Contra Cels. 3, 50.
7 For the present purpose it suffices to refer to the treatment of synagogue practice in G. F. Moore's Judaism, I, 286–305.
8 A. Harnack, Die Quellen der sogenannten apostolischen Kirchenordnung: nebst einer Untersuchung über den Ursprung des Lectorats (Texte und Untersuchungen II, 5). The parts of this monograph which are used, without further references, in the text above, are pp. 16–17; 43; 62–63; 73–75; 82–84. Wieland's work in Römische Quartalschrift, Suppl. 7, 1892, is unfortunately not accessible to me.
9 For this use of διηγήσασθαι cf. Origen, Hom. XIX on Jeremiah, Berlin ed., Vol. III, p. 166, 35: ἐνθάδε ὸ ἀγών ἐστι παραστῆσαι τὸ βούλημα τῶν γραμμάτων, καὶ δὴ ὁμολογῶ κατ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν μὴ δύνασθαι αὐτὰ διηγήσασθαι.
10 It did not, however, escape the fine net cast by Cabrol and Leclercq, Monuments Ecclesiae Liturgica, I, p. 120 (No. 1240).
11 Berlin ed., Vol. VII, p. 128, 17–21. That explicuit means “has explained” and not simply “has made known,” “has brought before you,” is shown by Hom. VI on Judges 4 (Berlin ed., Vol. VII, p. 502), continuationem cantici per singula non occurrimus explicare.
12 It is a reasonable conjecture, though incapable of proof, that an explanation of the lection by the reader preceded some of the homilies in which Origen enters directly upon his “deeper” interpretation with no allusion, or only a brief one, to the overt meaning of the text.
13 “Le Texte des homélies de Saint Jean Chrysostome sur les Actes des Apôtres” (Recherches de Science Religieuse, XXVII [1937], 513–548, esp. p. 514); summary of a thesis presented for the doctorate at the University of Michigan. — Father Smothers has generously placed at my service a précis of the organization of all of Chrysostom's homilies on the Acts, accompanied by some valuable comments, upon which the remarks above are based. The “second exegesis” does not occur in Nos. 1, 2, 47 and (at least not in typical form) 44; and it is very short in No. 8. It occurs occasionally in other homilies than those based upon Acts.
14 Cf. Montfaucon's preface to Vol. IX, p. vii (second Paris edition), and the beginning of Homily 1.
15 In a letter on this subject.
16 Mai, Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, II, 537; Migne, P. G. 18, 599 C.
17 Zeitschrift für wiss. Theologie, XXXI (1888), 434–448.
18 Mélanges Cumont, p. 109.
19 “Melito und Novatian,” Arch. f. latein. Lexikographie, XIII, 61–63.
20 I have included the last sentence in the quotation because it lends some support to the view that Melito's words ἐβρόντησεν … ἔδωκεν ϕωνήν are an imaginative development from the Gospel story of the earthquake and the splitting of the rocks.
21 See Amann's note in his edition of the Protevangelium.
22 For a single example, which bears a certain resemblance to the Gospel story, compare the story cited by Wetstein in his note on Matt. 27, 51 about the splitting of the peplos, upon which the servile Athenians had had representations of Demetrius embroidered along with those of Athena and Zeus; Plut. Dem. 12.
23 Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, XXXV (1924), 306.
24 The rabbinical doctrine (Bab. Yoma 21b, Goldschmidt's translation, III, 53; Jer. Taanith, 2, 1, Maccoth 2, 6; Schwab's translation, VI, 153, XI, 90) that the Shechinah, though present in the tabernacle and the first temple, was lacking in the second temple (and a fortiori in the temple of Herod?) was probably not consistently held.
25 Th. Zahn, in Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, XIII (1902), 729–756; Joseph. Bell. Jud. 6, 293–295. The pertinent passages from the Talmud (Jer. Yoma 43 c ad fin., Bab. Yoma 39 b) are cited by Zahn, pp. 740–741. — The question about the two veils was debated by Origen (on Matt., Comm. Ser. 138; Berlin ed., Vol. XI, 285–6), who decided in favor of the outer veil, chiefly because that view fits better with his “inner” interpretation of the happening. Jerome ep. 120 (to Hedybia) follows Origen.
26 Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, XXXV (1924), 287–314.
27 Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch.
28 So G. A. Barton, in Hastings ERE IV, 594–5; he finds (p. 596b) an example as late as Eccl. 5, 6.
29 For the idea of the Holy Spirit deserting Israel, compare the Midrashic interpretation of Eccl. 12, 7 (Midrasch Kohelet, p. 157 ed. Wünsche).
30 Dem. Evang. 6, 18, 41.
31 Ant. 9, 225.
32 One inclines to read λαμπρότερον in Josephus' text, or else to omit ἡλίου, as Eusebius does when he quotes the passage.
33 See Strack-Billerbeck, II, 78–79, on Luke 1, 11.
34 Midrasch Bereshith Rabba Par. X, Ch. 2, 1 (p. 42 Wünsche); Bab. Giṭṭin 56 b (tr. Goldschmidt, VI, 366–7).
35 Joseph. Ant. 13, 282.
36 Bell. Jud. 6, 299.