The ''Belly-Myther'' of Endor: Interpretations of 1 Kingdoms 28 in the Early Church (Writings from the Greco-Roman World) PDF
Preview The ''Belly-Myther'' of Endor: Interpretations of 1 Kingdoms 28 in the Early Church (Writings from the Greco-Roman World)
THE “BELLY-MYTHER” OF ENDOR Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Greco-Roman World JohnT.Fitzgerald,GeneralEditor Editorial Board DavidArmstrong ElizabethAsmis BrianE.Daley,S.J. DavidG.Hunter DavidKonstan WendyMayer MargaretM.Mitchell MichaelJ.Roberts JohanC.Thom JamesC.VanderKam Number16 THE“BELLY-MYTHER”OFENDOR Interpretationsof1Kingdoms28intheEarlyChurch VolumeEditor AbrahamJ.Malherbe The “Belly-Myther” of Endor 1 28 Interpretations of Kingdoms in the Early Church TranslatedwithanIntroductionandNotesby Rowan A. Greer and Margaret M. Mitchell SocietyofBiblicalLiterature Atlanta THE“BELLY-MYTHER”OFENDOR Interpretationsof1Kingdoms28intheEarlyChurch Copyright©2007bytheSocietyofBiblicalLiterature. Allrightsreserved. Nopartofthisworkmaybereproducedortransmittedinanyformorbyany means,electronicormechanical,includingphotocopyingandrecording,orby means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be ex- presslypermittedbythe1976CopyrightActorinwritingfromthepublisher. RequestsforpermissionshouldbeaddressedinwritingtotheRightsandPer- missionsDepartment,SocietyofBiblicalLiterature,825HoustonMillRoad, Suite350,Atlanta,GA30329,USA. LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData The“Belly-Myther”ofEndor:interpretationsof1Kingdoms28inthe early church / translated with an introduction and notes by Rowan A. GreerandMargaretM.Mitchell. p. cm. — (Society of Biblical Literature writings from the Greco-Romanworld;v.16) Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex. ISBN-13:978-1-58983-120-9(pbk.:alk.paper) ISBN-10:1-58983-120-9(pbk.:alk.paper) 1.Bible.O.T.Samuel,1st,XXVIII–Criticism,interpretation,etc. 2. Bible. O.T. Samuel, 1st, XXVIII–Criticism, interpretation, etc.– History–Early church, ca. 30-600. I. Greer, Rowan A. II. Mitchell, MargaretMary,1956-. BS1325.52.B452006 222(cid:2).4306–dc22 2006029289 0708091011121314—54321 PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmericaonacid-free,recycledpaper conformingtoANSI/NISOZ39.48-1992(R1997)andISO9706:1994 standardsforpaperpermanence. Table of Contents Preface vii Rights and Permissions xxi Abbreviations xxiii Analyses 1. SomeObservationson theTextsTranslated: TheologicalPerspectives xxxi 2. PatristicRhetoricon Allegory:Origen and EustathiusPut1Kingdoms28on Trial lxxxv 3. CompositionalAnalyses A. Origen,Homily5on1Kingdoms cxxv B. Eustathius,Bishop ofAntioch, On theBelly-Myther, AgainstOrigen cxxxix Texts and Translations 1. JustinMartyr,Dialogue withTrypho 105 2 2. Tertullian,OntheSoul 54–58 6 3. TheMartyrdomofPionius 12–14 26 4. Origen,Homily5on1Kingdoms 32 5. Eustathius,Bishop ofAntioch, OntheBelly-Myther, AgainstOrigen 62 6. Apollinarisof Laodicea,A Fragment fromtheCatenae 158 7. Diodoreof Tarsus, AFragmentfromtheCatenae 160 8. Gregoryof Nyssa, LettertoTheodosiusconcerning the Belly-Myther 166 Bibliography 179 Index of BiblicalReferences 185 Preface WretchthatIam!Ofmyownruinauthor! Wherearemyoldsupports?Thevaliantyouth Whoseverynamewasterrortomyfoes, Myragehasdroveaway.OfGodforsaken InvainIaskHiscouncel!Hevouchsafes Noanswertothesonsofdisobedience! — Ev’nmyowncouragefailsme! Canitbe? — IsSaulbecomeacoward? I’llnotbelieveit: Ifheav’ndeniestheeaid,seekitfromhell! GeorgeFrederickHandel,Saul,1739 For Handel in his oratorio, Saul, who sings these words, is a tragic hero, and this reading of Saul’s story is probably the one thatfirststrikesthemodernreader. Saul’smeetingwiththebelly- mytherof Endor canseemnomore thanafinalsettingof theseal on Saul’s fate. In the early church, however, it was not so much Saulthatoccupiedcenterstageinthestoryof1Kgdms281 asthe apparition of Samuel the prophet. William Blake understood the story this way. Handel’s operas and oratorios may have inspired Blake,butthatis not thecasehere. The RosenwaldCollectionof theNationalGalleryinWashingtonincludesapen-and-inkwater- colorover graphitethatis oneofBlake’searliestworks, produced withinayearorsoofhisentranceintotheRoyalAcademySchools in August of 1779. The ghost of Samuel is the central figure and rises starkly in the center of the painting. Samuel stares at Saul, who half-kneeling on the left reels back and with outstretched hands appears to be warding off Samuel’s judgment. The belly- myther crouches at the right of the painting, and one of Saul’s 2 servants stands transfixed at the far left. It is the apparition of Samuelthatalsoengagestheimaginationoftheearlychurch. Was 1 BecausetheSeptuagintistheBiblefortheGreekpatristicexegetesdis- cussed in this volume, we refer to the book as 1 Kingdoms; in Hebrew and Englishitiscalled1Samuel. 2 SeePeterAckroyd,Blake:ABiography(NewYork:Knopf,1996),28, 77–78,138. viii the ‘‘belly-myther’’ of endor itreallySamuel’sspiritthatcameup,orwasitnomorethanade- monicdeception? Thanks to the work of four modern scholars, we now have easy access to some of the significant treatments of 1 Kgdms 28 that survive from the early church. In 1986 Pierre and Marie- Thérèse Nautin published their edition of Origen’s homilies on Samuel, including the fifth homily, on 1 Kgdms 28. Three years laterManlioSimonettipublishedhiseditionofthreeworksbound togetherinthemanuscripttradition:Origen’shomily, Eustathius ofAntioch’smuchlongertreatiserefutingOrigen’sinterpretation of1Kgdms28,andtheshortletterofGregoryofNyssathatgives us his interpretation of the story. In 2002 José H. Declerck pub- lishedhiseditionofalltheworksofEustathiusthatsurvive. These volumesandthenotesincludedinthemplacethematerialsinthe widercontextofearlyChristianexegesisandtheology. monacensis graecus 331 (m) Thistenth-centurymanuscript,preservedinMunich,isvirtually 3 the sole reliable witness to the three works we have mentioned. ThepictureissomewhatcomplicatedbythefactthatEustathius’s citationsofOrigen’shomilydonotalwaysconformexactlytoM’s text of the homily. Moreover, there is fragmentary evidence for Origen’s work in the Tura papyri (datedca. sixth to seventh cen- tury), discovered in 1942. What is fascinating, however, is to speculateconcerninghowthethreewritingscametobecombined, how they were then included with three other writings, how this collectionfounditswaywestandeventuallywastranscribedasM. It is possible to imagine the story as follows. In about the year 240 Origen was invited to preach in Jerusalem in the presence of Alexander,thebishop. Thiswasobviouslyagreathonor,sincewe can suppose that, when the bishop was present, he would be the 3 For descriptions of the manuscript, see Pierre and Marie-Thérèse Nautin, Origène:HoméliessurSamuel(SC328; Paris:Cerf, 1986), 11–13; and José H. Declerck, Eustathii Antiocheni Opera (CCSG 51; Turnhout: Brepols; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002), xxx-xxxii, lxix-xciv. Sometimes the evidencefromtheTurapapyrus(T)isrelevantforestablishingthetext,butit ispossiblethatEustathius’scitationsofOrigen’shomilyarenotexactorderive fromadifferentGreekmanuscript. preface ix onetopreach. AswelearnfromtheopeningofOrigen’shomily,a longlessonwasreadfromthelaterchaptersof1Kingdoms. Ori- gen left to the bishop the choice of what part to consider, and in this way the story of Saul and the belly-myther of Endor became Origen’s topic. The storywas alreadyproblematic,andOrigen is clearlyenteringadebatethatwasalreadytakingplace. The homily itself apparentlyprovoked further debate, or at 4 leastthatiswhatEustathiussupposes. Includedinhistreatiseare severalpassagesnotfoundinOrigen’shomilyaswehaveit. There are several possible explanations, including the guess that Ori- gen made an addendum to his homily or the idea that Eustathius is simply citing Origen’s comments as he found them in other of Origen’s writings, now lost to us. A third possibility, as the Nautins have suggested and argued for, is that Origen preached 5 a second homily, which was available to Eustathius. Answering this question is rendered all the more difficult by the fact that, as throughouthistreatise,Eustathiusisfashioningsome statements ofOrigen’sbybricolageintohisownpersonificationofhisprovo- cateur. Whatever the explanation, Eustathius wrote his treatise against Origen’s interpretation of 1 Kgdms 28 some eighty years afterOrigenhadpreached. Inabout320Eustathiuswasbishopof Berea, and it is the absence of any reference to the Arian contro- versyinthetreatisethatexplainstheconsensusthatitwaswritten before he becamebishop of Antioch shortly before the council of Nicaeain325. Eustathius’streatisewaswritteninreplytoaletter from Eutropius, who is probably to be identified with the bishop 6 ofHadrianopolis. SinceEutropiusreceivedboththetreatiseand 4 SeeEustathius,OntheBelly-Myther26. 5 SeethediscussioninNautinandNautin,Origène,86–89. TheNautins printthe“second homily”as homily6, butthisfragmentary text is based en- tirelyuponEustathius,OntheBelly-Myther26. Declerck(EustathiiAntiocheni Opera,c)notes:“Todaythereisatendencytosupposethefirstpossibility[asec- ondhomily]. Itisequallypossiblethatthetextsofthe‘secondinterpretation’ citedbyEustathiuscomefroman‘excursus’madeinthecontextofahomilyon areadingthathadnothingtodowiththestoryofthenecromancer.” Declerck alsonotesKlostermann’ssuggestionthatthedifficultycanberesolvedbyposit- ingalacunainM’stextofOrigen’shomily. 6 ThisEutropiuswasdeposedbytheintriguesofJuliantheApostate’s mother, Basilina (Athanasius, Fug. 3 and H. Ar. 5). See Michel Spanneut, Recherchessurlesécritsd’Eustathed’Antiocheavecuneéditionnouvelledesfrag- mentsdogmatiquesetexégétiques(Lille:FacultésCatholiques,1948),60.
Description:The list of books you might like
