Latin versions of Maßmann and Bernhardt excerpted essentially from Christian T. Petersen’s http://www.gotica.de/skeireins/, with minor changes
Gothic text based on William Holmes Bennett:
The Gothic Commentary on the Gospel of John:
skeireins aiwaggeljons þairh iohannen:
A Decipherment, Edition, and Translation. (New York, 1960).
| Folium : | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quadrans A : | 1A | 2A | 3A | 4A | 5A | 6A | 7A | 8A |
| Quadrans B : | 1B | 2B | 3B | 4B | 5B | 6B | 7B | 8B |
| Quadrans C : | 1C | 2C | 3C | 4C | 5C | 6C | 7C | 8C |
| Quadrans D : | 1D | 2D | 3D | 4D | 5D | 6D | 7D | 8D |
| The Skeireins text according to W. Bennett, 1960 The “Red Heifer” problem in the Skeireins (J. W. Marchand) St. Jerome’s letter to Sunnia and Friþila (Latin text) | ||||||||
|
IV:a : « So nu faheþs meina usfullnoda. Jains skal wahsjan, iþ ik minznan. » Eiþan nu siponjam seinaim, þaim bi swiknein du Judaium sokjandam, jah qiþandam sis : « Rabbei, saei was miþ þus hindar Jaurdanau, þammei þu weitwodides, sai, sa daupeiþ, jah allai gaggand du imma » — nauh unkunnandans þo bi Nasjand —, in-uh þis laiseiþ ins, qiþands : « Jains skal wahsjan, iþ ik minznan. » Aþþan so bi ina garehsns du leiti- IV:a (Maßmann 1857) « Hoc ergo gaudium meum impletum est. Illum oportet crescere, me autem minui » {Jn 3:29f.}. Itaque, quum discipuli ejus de purificatione cum Judæis disputarent et dicerent ei, « Rabbi, qui erat tecum trans Jordanem, cui tu testimonium perhibuisti, ecce hic baptizat, et omnes veniunt (= eunt) ad eum » {Jn 3:26}. Nesciebant adhuc munus Salvatori datum, quapropter docet eos, dicens, « Illum opportet crescere, me autem minui » {Jn 3:30}. At consilium de eo factum ad breve IV:a (Maßmann 1834) αὕτη οὖν ἡ χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ πεπλήρωται. ἐκεῖνον δεῖ αὐξάνειν, ἐμὲ δὲ ἐλαττοῦσθαι. Quum autem discipuli ejus de purificatione e Judæis quærentes εἶπαν αὐτῷ· ῥαββί, ὃς ἦν μετὰ σοῦ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, ᾧ σὺ μεμαρτύρηκας, ἴδε οὗτος βαπτίζει καὶ πάντες ἔρχονται πρὸς αὐτόν, nondum cognoscentes quæ (essent) circa Salvatorem. Propterea docet eos, dicens, Illum oportet crescere, sed me minui. Attamen prædestinatum ejus munus in brevi IV:a (Bernhardt 1884) « Hoc ergo gaudium meum impletum est. Illum oportet crescere, me autem minui. » Itaque discipulos suos, de purificatione cum Judæis quærentes et dicentes ipsi, « Rabbi, qui erat tecum trans Jordanem, cui tu testimonium perhibuisti, ecce hic baptizat, et omnes veniunt ad eum, » etiamtum ignorantes de Salvatore. Propterea docet eos, dicens, « Illum oportet crescere, me autem minui. » At dispensatio de eo constituta ad IV:a (Löbe 1839) — Hoc igitur gaudium meum impletum est ; ille debet crescere, verum ego minui {Johann. 3:29,30.}. Igitur quum discipuli ejus de purificatione cum Judæis disputarent et dicerent ei : Rabbi, qui fuit tecum trans Jordanem, cui tu testatus es, ecce, hic baptizat et omnes eunt ad eum {Johann. 3:26.}, nesciebant munus salvatori datum, quapropter docet eos, dicens : Ille debet crescere, verum ego minui. At consilium de eo factum ad bre- IV:a (Marchand) “This my joy is now fulfilled. He must increase, but I decrease.” Since now his disciples had argued with the Jews concerning purification, they now said among themselves, “Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, concerning whom you bore witness, behold, he is baptizing and all go to him” (they being still ignorant concerning the Savior). Therefore he taught them, saying, “He must increase, but I decrease.” Indeed, the plan {of salvation} concerning him was |
|
IV:b : leiti--lamma mela raihtis bruks was, jah, fauramanwjandei saiwalos þize daupidane, fralailot aiwaggeljons mereinai. Iþ Fraujins laiseins, anastodjandei af Iudaia, jah and allana midjungard gaþaih, and ƕarjanoh þeihandei und hita nu, jah aukandei, all manne du gudis kunþja tiuhandei. In-uh þis, jah skeirs wisandei mikilduþs Fraujins, wulþaus kannida, qiþands, « Sa iupaþro qimands ufaro allaim ist. » Ni þat-ei ufaro wisandan sware kannidedi, ak jah swalauda is mikil- IV:b (Maßmann 1857) tempus recti usus erat et, præparans animos baptizatorum, tradidit Evangelii prædicationi. Sed Domini doctrina, incipiens (= orta) e Judæa, per universum orbem crevit, ubique profecta usque hodie et aucta, omnes homines ad Dei cognitionem ducens. Quapropter etiam clarus exsistens, majestatem Domini gloriæ nuntiavit, dicens, « Qui desuper venit, supra omnes est » {Jn 3:31}. Non quo supra (omnes) exsistentem temere nuntiavisset, sed etiam talem ejus majesta- IV:b (Maßmann 1834) temporis spatio omnino utile erat et, præparans animos baptizatorum, tradidit Evangelii prædicationi. Domini vero doctrina, incipiens e Judæa, etiam per universum terrarum orbem crevit ubicumque proficiens usque hodie et (sese) augens, omnium gentium homines ad Dei cognitionem trahens. Propterea et claro modo magnificentiam gloriæ D[omi]ni notificavit, dicens, ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν· ; non quod supra viventem inaniter notificasset, sed etiam tantam ejus magni- IV:b (Bernhardt 1884) breve tempus quidem utilis fuit et, præparans animos baptizatorum, tradidit Evangelii prædicationi. Domini autem institutio, incipiens a Judæa, vel per omnem orbem terrarum crevit, per omnem locum crescens, usque ad hoc tempus et proficiens, omnes homines ad Dei cognitionem ducens, quia perspicua est. Propterea etiam magnitudinem Domini gloriæ notificavit, dicens, « Qui desuper venit, super omnes est. » Non quod superantem temere notificaverit, sed etiam tantam ejus IV:b (Löbe 1839) -ve tempus utile erat et præparans animos baptizatorum levavit evangelii prædicationi ; sed domini doctrina orta ex Judæa per omnem orbem profecta est, ubique profecta usque ad hodiernum diem et aucta omnes homines ad dei cognitionem perduxit {Vgl. Luc. 23:5.}, quapropter etiam clara erat. Majestatem domini gloriæ nuntiavit, dicens : Qui desuper venit, supra omnes est {Joh 3:31.} ; non quo supra (omnes) exsistentem temere nuntiavisset, sed etiam talem ejus majes- IV:b (Marchand) useful, so to speak, for a little while, and, preparing the souls of those to be baptized, it permitted the preaching of the gospel. But the Lord's teaching, beginning from Judea, grew throughout the whole earth, thriving everywhere up until now, and increasing, drawing all men to God’s kin. Because of this — and the greatness of the Lord {= Dominus/Jesus, cf. Diss. Max. § 46} being manifest — he {= the Baptist} preached of glory, saying, “He who comes from above is above all.” Not that he would have declared him being “above all” for no reason; but he also proclaimed |
|
leaf 4c IV:c : -duþais maht insok, jah himinakundana jah iupaþro qumanana qiþands, iþ sik airþakundana jah us airþai rodjandan, in þizei wistai manna was. Jaþþe weihs, jaþþe praufetus wisands jag~garaihtein weitwodjands, akei us airþai was, jah us waurdahai wistai rodjands. Iþ sa us himina qumana, jabai in leika wisan þuhta, akei « ufaro allaim ist. Jah þat-ei gasaƕ jag~gahausida þata weitwodeiþ, jah þo weitwodida is ni ainshun nimiþ. » Jah þauhjabai us IV:c (Maßmann 1857) -tis vim indicavit et cælestem et desuper profectum dicens (= dixit), se autem terrestrem et e terra loquentem. Quia naturā homo erat, sive sanctus sive prophetes exsistens et justitiam testans, tamen de terra erat et ex verbali natura loquens ; verum hic de cælo profectus {Jn 3:31}, quamquam in corpore esse videretur, tamen « supra omnes est {Jn 3:31}. Et quod vidit et audivit, hoc testatur et testimonium ejus nemo accipit » {Jn 3:32 ; cf. Jn 1:1—19a}. Et quamvis IV:c (Maßmann 1834) -ficentiæ vim indicavit et cæligenam et desursum venientem nominans, se autem ὦν et justitiæ testimonium perhibens, sed de terra erat atque ex verbi natura loquens. Sed ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος, etsi in corpore vivens videbatur, tamen ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν. καὶ ὁ ἑώρακε καὶ ἤκουε, τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ, καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει. Et licet IV:c (Bernhardt 1884) magnitudinis potentiam indicavit, et cælestem et desuper degressum dicens, se autem terrestrem et e terra loquentem, propterea quod naturā homo fuit, sive sanctus sive propheta erat et justitiam testificabatur, attamen e terra fuit et e verbali natura loquens ; sed qui ex cælo venit, etiamsi in corpore esse videbatur, tamen « super omnes est. Et quæ vidit et audivit, ea testatur ; et testimonium ejus nemo accipit. » Atque etsi e IV:c (Löbe 1839) -tatis vim indicavit et cælestem et desuper profectum dixit, se autem terrestrem et e terra loquentem. Quod natura homo erat, sive sanctus, seu prophetes exsistens, et justitiam testans, tamen de terra erat et ex verbali {nämlich im Gegensatze zu Christus, der sich nicht blos durch Worte, sondern auch durch Thaten als den Messias beurkundet.} natura loquens ; verum hic de cælo profectus, etiamsi in corpore esse videretur, tamen supra omnes est, et quod vidit et audivit, hoc testatur, et testimonium ejus nemo accipit {Johann. 3:32.}. Et quamvis de IV:c (Marchand) the power of His {= Christ’s} greatness thus, saying Him to be from heaven and coming from above, but himself {= the Baptist} to be of earth and speaking from the earth, for he was a man by nature. Whether holy or being a prophet and giving witness concerning righteousness, despite that he was from earth, yet (he was) speaking in accordance with a spiritual {waurdahs = λογικός} nature. But “the one who had come from heaven,” though He might seem to be in the body, nevertheless, “is above all {Jn 3:31}. And what He has seen and heard, that He testifies, and no one receives His testimony” {Jn 3:32 ; cf. Jn 1:1—19a}. And even though he |
|
leaf 4d IV:d : himina ana airþai in manne garehsnais qam, akei ni þe haldis airþeins was, nih us airþai rodjands, ak himinakunda anafilhands fulhsnja þoei gasaƕ jag~gahausida at Attin. Þo nu insakana wesun fram Iohanne ni in þis þatainei, ei Fraujins mikilein gakannidedi, ak du gatarhjan jah gasakan þo afgudon haifst Sabailliaus jah Markaillaus, þaiei ainana anananþidedun qiþan Attan jah Sunu. Iþ anþar weiha …. IV:d (Maßmann 1857) de cælo in terram veniret propter hominum destinationem, tamen non eo amplius terrestris erat nec e terra loquens, sed cælestia aperuit mysteria (= secreta) quæ viderat et audiverat apud Patrem. Hæc igitur indicabantur a Johanne, non eo solum consilio, ut Domini magnificentiam (= majestatem) nuntiaret, sed ad diffamandam et vituperandam impiam (= abominabilem) contentionem Sabellii et Marcelli, qui unum conati sunt dicere Patrem et Filium ; sed alius sacerdos … IV:d (Maßmann 1834) de cælo in terram pro hominum fortuna venerit, tamen nequaquam terrestris erat nec de terra loquens, sed cælestia tradens secreta quæ viderat et audierat apud patrem. Hæc ceterum insignita erant a Johanne, non ad hunc solum finem ut Domini majestatem notificaret, sed ad increpandam (etiam) et castigandam impiam contentionem Sabellii ac Marcelli, qui unum ausi sunt nominare Patrem et Filium ; alter autem sanctus Spi(ritus... IV:d (Bernhardt 1884) cælo in terram propter hominum dispensationem venit, tamen non idcirco terrester fuit neque e terra loquens, sed cælestia tradens mysteria quæ viderat et audiverat apud Patrem. Hæc igitur indicabantur a Johanne, non ideo tantum, ut Domini magnitudinem notam faceret, sed ad notandam et confutandam illam impiam controversiam Sabellii et Marcelli, qui unum ausi sunt dicere Patrem et Filium ; aliud vero Sanctus Spiritus ... IV:d (Löbe 1839) cælo in terram veniret propter hominum destinationem, tamen non eo magis terrestris erat nec e terra loquens, sed cælestia aperuit mysteria, quæ viderat et audiverat apud patrem. Hæc igitur indicabantur ab Johanne non eo solum consilio, ut domini majestatem nuntiaret, sed ad diffamandam et vituperandam abominabilem contentionem Sabellii et Marcelli, qui unum conati sunt dicere patrem et filium — — IV:d (Marchand) came from heaven to earth for the plan {of salvation} concerning men, nevertheless, he was not any the more earthly, nor speaking from the earth, but handing down the heavenly hidden things he has seen and heard from the Father, which have now been declared by John not only so that he might declare the greatness of the Lord, but to censure and rebuke the godless contention of Sabellius and Marcellius, who were so bold as to say that the Father and the Son are one but another the Holy (Ghost) … |
Versus qui post Joannem 5:23 sequuntur :
|
Note: Marchand’s English translation of leaves I and III is taken from The Making of Christian Communities in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, edited by Mark F. Williams (London : Anthem Press, 2005, pp. 63-76). |
Folium 1
Folium 2
Folium 3
Folium 4
Folium 5
Folium 6
Folium 7
Folium 8
|
From:
The Making of Christian Communities
in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages
edited by Mark F. Williams
London : Anthem Press, 2005
pp. 63-76
(text available on Google)
(Cf. also the biblical books of Hebrews [9:11-14 & 13:11]
and Numbers [19:1-10] for treatment of the “Red Heifer”)
|
The Gothic Intellectual These eight leaves have undergone all the misfortunes a manuscript could, mostly at the hands of scholars. When found by Angelo Mai, they had already been torn from their original manuscript, so that no two leaves follow one another; they had been washed and scraped, and the original Gothic had been written over with Latin texts, the fate of all Gothic manuscripts except the Codex Argenteus. In his zeal to decipher them, Angelo Mai smeared or rather soaked them with nut-gall, a common practice in the day.4 As is known, this treatment renders manuscripts fairly illegible to the next reader.5 To compound the felony Ehrle, in his zeal to protect the now damaged Vatican leaves, smeared them with gelatin (glycerin), thus rendering them impervious to ultra-violet rays, our best method of making them available to modern readers. A worse fate awaited them at the hands of philologists, however. In his admittedly incomplete count made about 1950, Bennett found that, in a text of 800 lines, averaging 13 letters per line, over 1,500 emendations had been proposed.6 In Cromhout’s edition alone, 940 words are deleted.7 In my discussion, I shall simply follow the manuscript readings as far as possible, so as to avoid interpreting modern interpretations. It is, however, in the matter of source criticism and what can only he called Parallelenjägerei (chasing after parallels) that the greatest crimes have been committed, and one has only to look at the sources and parallels cited by Dietrich,8 the latest editor to deal intensively with such things, to see how far one can go, where parallels such as anagkêi theikêi (by divine power) are cited (here as parallel to waldufnia gudiskamma [by divine authority], though the parallel text cited by Theodor of Herakleia, has exousiâi theikêi [by divine power]). Nowadays, by the use of the Thesaurus Linguæ Græcæ database, one could find many examples of ‘by divine power’.9 A parallel Dietrich does not cite, for example, is koinos pantôn Sôtêr (common Savior of all), from Athanasius, De incarnatione, par. 21. This is a perfect analogue for gamains allaize nasjands (la 6) (note the word order). So frequently, the understanding of the text is impaired by failure to place it in its context, leading inevitably to an impoverished reading. George P Landow’s remark on the failure to embed earlier literature in its ambience is particularly appropriate here: Although it is a commonplace that we have lost the intimate knowledge of the Bible which characterized literate people of the last century, we have yet to perceive the full implications of our loss. In the Victorian period — to go back no further — any person who could read, whether or not he was a believer, was likely to recognize scriptural allusions. Equally important, he was also likely to recognize allusions to typological interpretations of the scriptures. When we modern readers fail to make such once common recognitions we deprive many Victorian works of a large part of their context. Having thus impoverished them, we then find ourselves in a situation comparable to that of the reader trying to understand a poem in a foreign language after someone has gone through his dictionary deleting important words. Ignorant of typology, we under-read and misread many Victorian works, and the danger is that the greater the work, the more our ignorance will distort and inevitably reduce it.10 My intention is to discuss only two leaves (I and III) of the Skeireins, with the intention of placing the work in context — which in this case largely comprises patristic exegesis — in an attempt to understand it and to situate it in its place in history, to read it as a fourth or fifth-century text. It may be cause for surprise that I am writing on the Skeireins in a book devoted to ‘The Making of Christian Communities’. I am, however, using ‘community’ in the way in which it is most commonly used in the present-day media, and discussing the Gothic intellectual community. This in itself will probably cause still more surprise, for we do not usually use the word ‘intellectual’ when speaking of Goths;12 nor did one in the fourth century, where it was common to say such things as krazein hôs Gotthôn (shout like a Goth). This is, however, one of the most striking aspects of the Goths, namely, the rapidity with which they learned the intellectual fare of their day, patristic exegesis. St Jerome, in his famous letter to Sunnia and Friþila, two Goths who challenged his translation of Psalms in a number of passages, and whose corrections he occasionally accepted, said trenchantly (my translation): To My Beloved Brethren Sunnia and Fretela and to the others who are serving the Lord with you, Jerome. 1. Truly these apostolic and prophetic words have been fulfilled in you: ‘Their sound hath gone forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world (Ps 18.5; Rom 10.18).’ Who would have believed that the barbarous language of the Goths would seek after the Hebrew truth (Hebraica veritas), and that, while the Greeks are indolent and contentious, very Germany would scrutinize the words of the Holy Spirit? ‘In very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons; But in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him (Act. 10.34-35)’. The hands up to now hard from wielding the sword, and the fingers more fitting to handle the bow are softened to using the pen, and warlike hearts are turned to Christian gentleness. Now we also see the prophecy of Isaiah fulfilled in deed: ‘and they shall turn their swords into ploughshares and their spears into sickles (Isaiah 2:4)’. [See Latin text here] Or as Ch S Revillout remarked, as quoted by Scardigli: ‘Les Goths en théologie comme en tout le reste montraient une intelligence prompte et facile, une remarquable aptitude.’12 If the sometimes exaggerated reports of the Roman historians, in particular Jordanes, are to be believed, they also had a strong reverence for the Word. In spite of occasional detractors, it can be said that the translation of the Greek Bible into Gothic by Wulfila, who devised an alphabet for the purpose,13 for those who wish to look closely, is a grand witness to the intellectual and spiritual force of the Apostle of the Goths. The translation of the Lord’s Prayer alone, with its careful disambiguation of the Greek basileia, not always followed by more modern translators, reveals Wulfila’s sensitive treatment of his material. He deserved the universal respect and honor tendered him; also worth remembering is his foster son, Auxentius, whose eloquence even impressed Ambrose, who disputed with him.The history of the Goths, although occasionally murky and moot in individual details, is pretty much an open book. The authorities vie with each other in relating this history, and we have been fortunate to have such authorities as Gibbon, Thompson and Bury to relate it to us. We know that the Goths emigrated from Scandinavia around 1 AD, and I for one am willing ro accept Oxenstierna’s argument that it was from Västergotland.14 They landed at the mouth of the Vistula, perhaps leaving us the name Danzig, moved south in various ways, finally appearing in Roman history in or about the year 247. We may be able to trace them back as far as 350 BC. Gothic archaeology is somewhat difficult to follow, but this picture seems fairly clear. For the fourth and fifth centuries, the picture is very clear, and we can follow the political history of the Goths easily, with the problem of their spread being somewhat difficult.15 The religious and intellectual history of the Goths is another matter, however. The historians seem to devote little time to such matters, and our first, perhaps even our major, problem is the discovery of sources.16 This frequently takes us far afield, into languages such as Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian and Hungarian, and into archaeology and philology, areas which both historians of religion and Gothic specialists are often ill-equipped to explore. We know that Wulfila’s forefathers (progonoi) came from the village of Sadagolthina at the foot of Mount Parnassus (on which see now Salaville17), and that they were captured by the Goths upon raids during the years 267-269. They were Christians and converted at least some of their captors. We know a lot about Wulfila from the Church historians Socrates, Sozomen, Theodora and Philostorgius, all available in ready translation, and from the report by his foster-son, Auxentius, who disputed with Ambrose, as reported in the latter’s De fide, in a manuscript of which it is embedded.18 The history of the study of the ‘theology’ of the Skeireins is quickly told. The first editor, Massmann, whose services to scholarship were outstanding, got us off on thy wrong foot. He did what any scholar might well have done: he searched for fourth-century commentaries on the Gospel of John and found Balthasar Corderius, Catena Patrum græcarum in S Joannem ex antiquissimo græco codice nunc primam in lucem edita (Antwerp, 1630), not at all a bad choice, given Corderius’s well-known care. On this he then based his source study, and came to the conclusion that the major source for the Skeireins was Theodorus of Heraclea’s Hermeneia, even basing the name Skeireins on this work, as noted above. He ignored other commentaries on John not contained in Corderius, such as those of Chrysostom, Origen, Cyril of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopsuestia, as well as the rest of Greek and Latin patristics, which discussed the matters discussed by the skeireinist, often with reference to John, since the Goth was Arian, and these commentators were not.19 That this left us with a skewed picture is natural, and Massmann went even further. In listing his parallels, he listed floscules which had nothing more to do with the Skeireins than the use of the same words. As I pointed out above, with our present tools we can often find Massmann’s ‘sources’ in literally hundreds of works, and, of course, we have a better work on the catenæ than that of Corderius in Reuss.20 The century followed Massmann, however, being crowned by Dietrich’s Quellenuntersuchung (Source Criticism) with its ‘Parallelen aus der theologischen Tradition’, although Streitberg tried to reduce Dietrich’s list.21 He cites Ammonius, Cyril, Theodorus of Heraclea and Hahn’s Bibliothek der Symbole (Breslau, 1897). Jellinek saw that this was no way to do source criticism.22 He had already been (in 1891) the first to point out the influence of Ransom Theory, which he attributed to Irenæus, at least as the remote source.23 He seems not to realize that Ransom Theory was held by almost all fourth-century theologians. Bennett, with little comment, eschews references to patristic exegesis almost entirely: ‘On these topics the present edition has nothing either new or original to offer, and there would be little to gain in reproducing the extensive material that is already available.’24 This is pretty much where things stand at the moment, though a glance through the MLA online bibliography reveals a number of articles which touch on the skeireinist’s theology, as does Mossé’s Bibliographia gotica.25 Let us begin with leaf III of the Skeireins, which reads, with an interlinear translation:
Jellinek said that this leaf contained the most difficult passage in the Skeireins. The problem lies to a great extent with us rather than with the text. It is important to notice that the ‘Red Heifer’ of this treatment comes from the Hebrews rather than from Numbers, since it is often maintained that the Goths, as Arians, did not have the book of Hebrews. Massmann, who saw that part of the text had to be from Hebrews, nevertheless maintained that the skeireinist had also had recourse to the passage from Numbers, since ‘outside the camp’ is mentioned, and Hebrews does not mention it, according to him, and in this he is followed by later authorities, even Dietrich. This is, of course, based on a misreading of the Hebrews, where the Red Heifer is being presented as the type of Christ. Of course, as Jellinek said, we cannot expect Germanists to know about typology, since Schwietering and Curtius had not yet come along. But one might expect them to read the text; cf. Hebrews 13:11: ‘For the bodies…are burned without the camp, wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.’ We will encounter this failure to read the record over and over again. It is important also to note the typology, for it is often maintained that the Goths, as Antiochian critics, did not use typology and allegory. Bennett, the only critic to treat the Red Heifer page extensively, could make little sense out of it and consulted a modern rabbi as to the rite of the Red Heifer.26 This practice, whatever one thinks about a modern rabbi, has little to recommend it. The Jewish rite of the Red Heifer is treated thoroughly, for example, in Bonsirven, and Maimonides has written a famous treatise on it.27 Nevertheless, we must insist again with Massmann and Dietrich that it is the Red Heifer of Hebrews which is intended. On it and sprinkling, see the article on rhantizô and rhantismos in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. This article or the one in Hastings on the ‘Red Heifer’ will suffice to indicate the nature of the Red Heifer rite in Judaism. On the Red Heifer as a type of Christ, the fourth and fifth century exegetes offer a great deal of evidence. To show how easy it is nowadays to do what Jellinek was recommending, I downloaded the Ante- and Post-Nicene fathers from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library site (http://ccel.org) and searched through them with a browser (so-called GREP utility) for ‘heifer’. This brought in a number of patristic parallels: The Letter of Barnabas (I.142); Chrysostom, On the Statutes (1st Ser. 9, 440 ff.); Jerome, who in Lives of Illustrious Men, chapter LVII (p. 374) mentions that Trypho wrote a treatise on the Red Heifer; and the following passage from Theodoret’s Dialogues: ‘The image of the archetype is very distinctly exhibited by the lamb slain in Egypt, and by the red heifer burned without the camp, and moreover it is referred to by the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where he writes “Wherefore Jesus also that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate”.’28 Other parallels include Athanasius, Letter XIV on Easter (p. 542); Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, lecture XIII (p. 91); Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism (p. 363); Basil, Letter CCLXV (p. 304); Ambrose, Of the Holy Spirit, Book 1, Chap. VIII (p. 106; not a close parallel). The importance of all this is to show that the skeireinist is using the book of Hebrews, that he does use typology, and that he is simply in the mainstream. This does not require much of a knowledge of the Fathers, but it does require some reading in the Ante- and Post-Nicene fathers, and some ingenuity. if you have access to the Thesaurus Linguæ Græcæ, you can simply type in damal (for damalis, damaleôs), and you can find many more. Or, in the Patrologia Latina, type in vacca or even vacca rufa. This will prove that the skeireinist is offering us nothing new. There is no need to look for sources; indeed, sources merely cloud the issue; there are no sources. The skeireinist’s treatment of the Red Heifer is standard fare. This bring us to the final leaf and the pièce de résistance, Leaf 1:
Before we look at this leaf, however, we need to ask what the fourth century thought of salvation, as Jellinek did in his ‘Zur Skeireins’. Jellinek is the only Gothic specialist to treat the theology of our leaf. One can understand his surprise at finding that W Krafft, a theologian, had missed the fact that the leaf deals with Ransom Theory. Unfortunately, Jellinek was not familiar with patristics, so he could only cite a passage from Irenaeus he found in F Chr. Baur’s Die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung, a weak reed to lean upon. Modern interpreters, such as Hastings Rashdall and Jean Rivière, are in a much better position, with a number of excellent books on the Atonement.29 It is easy, however, to fabricate one’s own history, for the theory of the redemption known by its designation by Ambrose as the pia fraus was until Anselm not just the prevailing theory, but the only theory of the Redemption. It may shock us as it did Rashdall, who continually calls it ‘monstrous, horrible’, and seeks over and over again to find it overthrown, and we may wish with Russell to be able to say: ‘The idea of the trick faded, decisively rejected in the West by Augustine and in the East by Chrysostom.’30 But both Augustine and Chrysostom are stout proponents of the ‘trick’, as was also Martin Luther. Leo the Great summed up the pia fraus for his day: For though the true mercy of God had infinitely many schemes to hand for the restoration of mankind, it chose that particular design which put in force for destroying the devil’s work, not the efficacy of might but the dictates of justice. 134. And so it was no new counsel, no tardy pity whereby GOD took thought for men; but from the constitution of the world He ordained one and the same Cause of Salvation for all. For the grace of GOD, by which the whole body of the saints is ever justified, was augmented, not begun, when Christ was born: and this mystery of GOD’s great love, wherewith the whole world is now filled, was so effectively presignified that those who believed that promise obtained no less than they, who were the actual recipients, 142. He was able to bring about solely by the power of His Godhead; so as to rescue the creature that was made in the image of God from the yoke of his cruel oppressor. But because the devil had not shown himself so violent in his attack on the first man as to bring him over to his side without the consent of His free will, man’s voluntary sin and hostile desires had to be destroyed in such wise that the standard of justice should not stand in the way of the gift of Grace. And therefore in the general ruin of the entire human race there was but one remedy in the secret of the Divine plan which could succor the fallen, and that was that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression, to prevail for the rest both by His example and His merits.31 We see this same presentation over and over again, by all the fathers; in fact a simple search for esca and hamus in the Patrologia Latina, or for delear, ‘bait’, and agkistron, ‘fishhook’, in the Thesaurus Linguæ Græcæ, will yield a multitude of materials, for the fathers loved to put the pia fraus into terms of the bait of Christ’s body on the hook of the cross. To cite just one example, from an anonymous fourth-century source found in PG 61.753-4 (my translation): It is not from fear or horror of death that I say the words: ‘Father, if it is possible, let this chalice pass from me (Mt. 26, 39)’. I am rather speaking here a word of hidden secrecy. This word is a bait for the devil; with these words I must lure him to the hook. The devil saw me do many miracles, as I with a bare touch of the hand cured sicknesses, how I with one word drove out legions of demons, how a sign of my hand with the quickness of a winnowing fan smoothed the sores of the lepers, how I with voice alone made the knees of the crippled firm, how I rebuked wind and sea and how everything obeyed me trembling. By such deeds he had to notice that I am God’s Son, and had to consider that my death on the cross signified his demise, that my descent into the lower regions would break his iron bolts and burst his brazen gates (cf. Ps. 23.7-10). Considering these things, he flees and hesitates to erect the precious cross, the sign of victory. What am I then to do? Like an experienced fisher I act cowardly, pretend to have fear of death and say: ‘Father, if it is possible, let this chalice pass from me’. Such words of hesitation are supposed to cause him to believe that I am only a fearful human being and would like to escape death, and are supposed to urge him to erect against me, as he sees it, the secret made of wood, the cross, in the midst of the earth. I have to counter him with cunning, like an experienced fisher; I have to bear everything for the sake of the life of all. For since he from the beginning on aimed with cunning for the damnation of Adam, so will I all the more practice cleverness for the salvation of all. With seductive words he seduced Adam, with divine words the betrayer will be fooled. When the fisher throws the hook into the sea, but does not bait it and does not present the worm as fleeing by jerking it back now and again with his hand, the fish do not attack it. I have clothed the hook of My divinity with the worm of my body. Hidden in the bait of My body, I let the hook down into the depths of this life. If the worm does not twist Like a worm, then the one who is to be caught does not approach the hook. And so I have to act like a worm. ‘I am a worm and no man’ (Ps 21.7), so that he will attack and bite on the hook and will be drawn out by Me, and then will be fulfilled the passage in Job (40.20): ‘You will draw out the dragon with a hook’. I act like a human being who is fearful and flees death. I will say: ‘My soul is troubled unto death (Mt. 26.38)’. I will say: ‘Father, if it is possible, let this chalice pass from me.’ And when that one hears this word, then he will silently rejoice and be glad. For he is always alive to opportunities to work against Me. When he hears: ‘Father, if it is possible, let this chalice pass from me,’ he will rejoice, and what will he say? ‘Hah! This One also is a human being! I swallowed Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the patriarchs and the prophets. I will swallow This One, too. Just look! He is cowardly like a human being, He IS a human being, I will swallow Him.’ Those who are familiar with the famous miniature of Herrad of Landsperg will recognize the picture, so well treated by Zellinger.32 One of the most problematic things about ‘medieval man’ is the fact of his belief in what St Thomas called epieikeia (fittingness); this is what the skeireinist means by þata gadob. It would have been contrary to epieikeia, justitia, for God to save man by divine power; it was fit and proper for him to redeem mankind by a contrary trick: ‘We need to remember how the first Adam was cast out of paradise into the desert, in order to think of how the Second Adam will return from the desert… Thus, the hunger of the Lord is a pious trick (pia fraus).’33 St Augustine insisted over and over that this must be done properly: ‘Non potentia Dei, sed justitia superandus est (scil. diabolus)’ (the devil is to he conquered not by the power of God, but by epieikeia, ‘rightness’).34 Space does not permit me to go into garehsns and the various translations of it. It is obvious that it is Greek oikonomia, the plan of salvation which God proposed for mankind before all time, a commonplace of fourth and fifth century theology, as also later. Suffice it to say that I must disagree with my hero, Jellinek, who says, concerning the scheme of salvation presented on Leaf I: ‘Von der allgemeinen theologischen Ansicht der Zeit weicht also der Skeireinist entschieden ab (The skeireinist thus definitely departs from the common theory)’.35 There is nothing new or startling in the theology of the Skeireins; it is just common fourth and fifth-century fare, where there is scarcely a theologian who does not espouse it. It may seem surprising from a nineteenth-century standpoint, but it is just the same old hat to the fourth century. The Goths may have advanced intellectually, but in theology they conformed. |
Notes(Notes 1-9a unavailable)
|
|
From Theodore Beza, BIBLIA SACRA SIVE TESTAMENTUM NOVUM (1569), the New Testament book of Hebrews (ad Hebræos), 9:11-14 : |
Hebrews 13:10-13 :
|
|
From Immanuel Tremellius, BIBLIA SACRA SIVE TESTAMENTUM VETUS (1575), the Old Testament book of Numbers (Numeri), 19:1-22 : |
CAP. XIX. {19} De expiatione per Junicem rufam.
|
|
Epistula 106 Dilectissimis fratribus Sunniæ et Fretelæ, et ceteris qui vobiscum Domino serviunt, Hieronymus. 1. Vere in vobis apostolicus et propheticus sermo completus est : « In omnem terram exiit sonus eorum, et in fines orbis terræ verba eorum. » Quis hoc crederet, ut barbara Getarum lingua Hebraicam quæreret veritatem ; et dormitantibus, immo contendentibus Græcis, ipsa Germania Spiritus Sancti eloquia scrutaretur ? « In veritate cognovi, quod non est personarum acceptor Deus ; sed in omni gente qui timet Deum et operatur Dei justitiam, acceptus est illi. » Dudum callosa tenendo capulo manus, et digiti tractandis sagittis aptiores, ad stilum calamumque mollescunt ; et bellicosa pectora vertuntur in mansuetudinem Christianam. Nunc et Esajæ vaticinium cernimus opere completum : « Concident gladios suos in aratra, et lanceas suas in falces ; et non assumet gens contra gentem gladium, et non discent ultra pugnare. » Rursumque in eodem : « Pascetur lupus cum agno ; et pardus requiescet cum hædo ; et vitulus et leo et taurus pascentur simul ; et puer parvulus ducet eos, et bos et ursus in commune pascentur, parvulique eorum erunt pariter ; et leo et bos comedent paleas » ; non ut simplicitas in feritatem transeat, sed ut feritas discat simplicitatem. 2. Quæritis a me rem magni operis et majoris invidiæ, in qua scribentis non ingenium, sed eruditio comprobetur ; ut dum ipse cupio judicare de ceteris, judicandum me omnibus præbeam ; et in opere Psalterii juxta digestionem schedulæ vestræ, ubicumque inter Latinos Græcosque contentio est, quid magis Hebræis conveniat, significem. In quo illud breviter admoneo, ut sciatis aliam esse editionem quam Origenes et Cæsariensis Eusebius, omnesque Græciæ tractatores κοινήν, id est, « communem » appellant, atque « Vulgatam », et a plerisque nunc Λουκιάνειος dicitur ; aliam Septuaginta Interpretum, quæ in ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus repperitur, et a nobis in Latinum sermonem fideliter versa est, et Hierosolymæ atque in Orientis ecclesiis decantatur. Super qua re et sanctus filius meus Avitus sæpe quæsierat. Et quia se occasio fratris nostri Firmi presbyteri dedit, qui mihi vestram epistulam tradidit a vobis, scribens in commune respondeo, et me magno amicitiæ libero fenore, quod quanto magis solvimus, plus debemus. Sicut autem in Novo Testamento, si quando apud Latinos quæstio exoritur, et est inter exemplaria varietas, recurrimus ad fontem Græci sermonis, quo Novum scriptum est Instrumentum, ita et in Veteri Testamento, si quando inter Græcos Latinosque diversitas est, ad Hebraicam confugimus veritatem ; ut quicquid de fonte proficiscitur, hoc quæramus in rivulis. Κοινή autem ista, hoc est communis editio, ipsa est quæ et Septuaginta. Sed hoc interest inter utramque, quod κοινή pro locis et temporibus, et pro voluntate scriptorum, vetus corrupta editio est. Ea autem quæ habetur in ἑξαπλοῖς, et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est quæ in eruditorum libris incorrupta et immaculata Septuaginta interpretum translatio reservatur. |
->> >> >>⇈⇑⇈<< << <<-
| Deus vult ! | — Brian Regan ( Inscriptio electronica : Brennus@brennus.bluedomino.com ) |
| Dies immutationis recentissimæ : die Lunæ, 2015 May 11 |