Τhe Last Temptation of Satan

7/23/2019 Τhe Last Temptation of Satan

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/he-last-temptation-of-satan 1/26

Harvard Divinity School

The Last Temptation of Satan: Divine Deception in Greek Patristic Interpretations of thePassion NarrativeAuthor(s): Nicholas P. ConstasSource: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 97, No. 2 (Apr., 2004), pp. 139-163Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity SchoolStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4495080 .

Accessed: 03/02/2011 10:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Harvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hds

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4495080?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4495080?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hds




The LastTemptationof Satan:

Divine

Deception

in

Greek Patristic

Interpretations

f the Passion Narrative*

Nicholas

P.

Constas

Harvard

Divinity

School

"Perhaps god

has deceivedus."

-Jorge

Luis

Borges

N

Introduction

A remarkablenumber

of Greek

patristic

hinkers

gave expression

to the

theory

that

Satan

was deceived

by

Christ,

who

exploited

his

adversary's

mistaken belief that

the

object

of

his

desires was

a

mere

man and

not

the

deity

incarnate.Driven

by

an

insatiable

hunger

for human

bodies,

the

demonic

appetite

was

inexorably

drawn

to

devour heseeminglymortal leshof Jesus.Thatflesh,however,was buta seductive

lure

concealing

the

power

of

divinity

that

brought

about Satan's downfall and

even

(in

some

traditions)

his salvation.The crucialevents

in

this dramaof

deception

were

Christ's

agony

in

the

garden

and his

suffering

on

the

cross,

moments of

apparent

weakness

and

vulnerability

which

patristic

writers

daringly reconfigured

as

the

cunning

ruses of

a master

strategistdefeating

the

enemy through

his own devices.

Such

a radical

reinterpretation

of

Scripture

was

achieved

largely through

the

tools of

typological

and

allegorical exegesis, by

which

patristic

writers

sought

to

explain

and

thereby

eliminate the "shame

and

folly

of the

cross"

(compare

1

Cor

1:18-25;

Heb

12:2;

Deut

21:23),

along

with

the attendant

spectacles

of

Christ's

apparent

earfulness and uncontrolled emotion.

Having

succumbed so

pathetically

to the fear

of

death,

the

suffering figure

de-

scribed

n the

Gospels

was in

flagrant

violation

of Roman

decorum,

a construction

*This

paper

began

as a seminar

project

at Hebrew

University,

Jerusalem

(June-August

1995),

with the

support

of

a

grant

from

the National Endowment for the

Humanities,

and

I am

thankful

to

Gary

Anderson,

Michael

Stone,

and David

Satran for

their comments

and

criticisms.

Early

versions

were

presented

at the annual

meeting

of

the

North

American Patristics

Society

(1997),

and at HarvardDivinity School in the spring of 1998, at which time Wendy Larson read through

the

text and

greatly improved

it.

A

subsequent

version

was

presented

at "Eros and

the

Religious

Imagination,"

he Sixth

Annual

Conference

in

Comparative

Religion

at New York

University (April

2000).

Translations

are

my

own,

except

where noted. GNO

=

Gregorii Nysseni opera

(ed.

Werner

Jaeger

et

al.,

1921-

).

HTR 97:2

(2004)

139-63



140 HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

of

the

Stoics,

whose

teachings

on the enduranceof

pain

were vaunted as the

ideal

expression

of masculine

behavior

and

identity.

It

will

be worth

remembering

hat

the

Stoics further

distinguished

between the

"sage" (ook6;)

and

the "fool." The

sage

was

a

perfected

creature

who attained

wisdom

(and

thus

divine

similitude)

by

divesting

himself of

the

ignominious

marks

of

creaturehood,

especially

fear and

suffering.

The

primary

characteristic f the

sage

was,

in a

word,

apatheia:

freedom

from

passion.

Thus the anti-Christian

hilosopher

Celsus

(ca. 176)

argued

hat,

f

the Christiansavior

was

in

any

sense

divine,

"he would

have

never

uttered oud

laments and

wailings,

nor

prayed

o avoid the fear

of

death,

saying something

ike:

'Oh

Father,

et this

cup pass

from

me'

(Matt

26:39)."'

By the fourthcenturyof the Christian ra,the Stoic valorizationof endurancen

the

face

of

pain

had found

an

unexpected

ally

in the

theology

of Arianism.

Arius,

a

priest

n

the

church

of

Alexandria,

argued

hatthe

passion

of Christwas a

clear

sign

thatthe wounded savior

of the

Gospels

was not to be identified

with

the

impassible

divinity.

Based on his

cowardlyperformance

n the

garden

of

Gethsemane,

Arius

and

his followers concluded

that

Christ

was

neither

ranscendentally

wise nor

divinely

dispassionate.

And whereas

the Arians conceded that Christ could be said to

have

"participated"

nd

"grown"

n

wisdom

(compare

Luke

2:52),

he

could in

no

way

be

identified with Wisdom

itself. In

response,

the

opponents

of

Arianism

argued

that the

inability

to discernthe

germ

of

divinity

hiddenwithin the husksof suffer-

ing

was the result of

a

superficialreading

of

Scripture.

Fixated on

surface

forms,

the Arians had blinded

themselves to the

deepermeaning

of

the

sacredtext. At the

same

time,

the failureto

understand he truenature

of

signification

was itself a

sign

that the

superficial

reader

was

incapacitatedby

a

system

of

ultimately

demonic

metaphysics.

Uninformed

literalism,

and

its

accompanying

low

christology,

was

a

reading

of

Scripture

hat

the Arians sharedwith

the

devil himself.

That

Christ

suffered,

cried out

loudly,

and

died could not

be

denied

by anyone.

The Gospels had all put the end of Christ's ife at the dramaticcenter of the story,

suggesting

a

point

of

convergence

for

human

hopes

and

expectations.

How

then,

in

the cultural

atmosphere

of late

antiquity,

could the

viability

of these

narratives

be

maintained?

How

could

one reclaim the discredited and dehumanized

Christ,

'Cited

by Origen

(ca.

185-254)

in

Cels.

2.24;

ed.

Marcel

Borret,

Contre

Celse,

vol.

1

(SC

132;

Paris:

Cerf,

1967)

348;

trans.

Henry

Chadwick,

Contra

Celsum

(Cambridge:Cambridge

University

Press,

1986)

88.

Origen correctly

points

out

that

"no

statement

s found that

Jesus

'uttered

wailings,'"

and he accuses Celsus of both

"altering"

he text

(of

Matt

26:39)

and

ignoring

those

passages

which

"prove

that Jesus

was

ready

and

courageous

in

face

of his

suffering."

Origen

concedes

that

a

proper

discussion

of

these

problems

requires

the

"help

of divine

wisdom,"

in

support

of which he cites

1

Cor

2:7,

a

text that

was

central to the

developing theologia

crucis. For

related

passages,

see

Cels.

6.34

(ed.

Marcel

Borret,

Contre

Celse,

vol.

3

[SC

147;

Paris:

Cerf,

1969]

262;

trans.

Chadwick,

350);

6.36

(ed.

266,

trans.

352);

and

6.10:

"They

would

have us believe

that

(Jesus)

is

the Son

of

God,

although

he

was

most

dishonorably

arrestedand

punished

to his utter

disgrace,

and

until

quite

recently

wandered about

most

shamefully

in the

sight

of

all

men"

(ed.

202-4,

trans.

324).



NICHOLAS

P.

CONSTAS

141

and

restore o

him the

dignity

and

value

thathe

seemed to have lost in

his shameful

death

at

the hands

of

the

Romans?

How, too,

could the

post-Constantinian hurch,

increasingly

nstitutionalized

within

the structuresof the Roman

Empire,

promote

a criminal

condemnedto

the

cross

by

a

Roman

governor

as the

one,

true

God?2

To

be

sure,

early

Christiansventurednumerous

answers

n

response

to these

questions.

One

such

response,

the

subject

of

this

study,

endeavoredto

negotiate

the

problem

of

the

passion

by

placing

it within

the frameworkof

an

elaborate

wofold

exegesis.

Authorization

or such

a

frameworkwas

believed to have

been

providedby

Scripture

itself,

which

effectively

reconfiguredproblematic signs through

a

hermeneutical

movement

from "letter" o

"spirit"

2

Cor

3:6).

Through

allegorical

deferrals of

meaning,the offending signumcould be blurredand obscured, and,when neces-

sary,

subjected

to

systematic

reversal and

inversion.

In this

way,

the

sign

of the

cross,

the ultimate

"sign

of contradiction"

(rlgteov

&vut7LEy6ptEvov,

uke

2:34),

was

reconfigured hrough

a

movement

transforming

manifest "shame and

folly"

into

an emblem of the

"secret

and

hidden

wisdom

of God"

(1

Cor

2:7).3

After

an

introductory

discussion of the notion of

"divine

deception,"

the fol-

lowing

study

turns to a consideration of two

works

by Gregory

of

Nyssa

(the

Catechetical

Discourse,

and the Sermonon the Three

Days

between Christ's

Death

and

Resurrection),

ollowed

by

an

analysis

of the

Homily

on the Passion and the

Cross

attributed

o

Athanasius of Alexandria. These

fourth-century

exts,

along

with

others

from across

the

late

antiqueperiod

that

will

be discussed

in

this

paper,

reconfigure

he

Passion Narrative

as a

divine

strategy

cunningly

calculated

to

de-

ceive the

devil. The fourth

century

was a time of crisis

for

the

Christian

ommunity,

which

struggled

both

to

legitimize

itself within a

cultural

system

that had

long

2Compare

Justin

Martyr,

1

Apol.

13.4:

"They

say

that our madness

(jgavia)

consists

in the

fact

that we

put

a

crucified

man in

second

place

after

the

unchangeable

and eternal

God,

the

creator

of

the

world";

ed.

Miroslav

Marcovich,

Iustini

MartyrisApologiae pro

Christianis

(PTS

38;

Berlin:

Walter

de

Gruyter,

1994) 51, lines 15-19. Martin

Hengel

(Crucifixion

[trans.John Bowden;

Philadelphia:

Fortress

Press,

1977])

surveys

a

large

number of

passages by

early

Christian writers

dealing

with

this

theme.

In

the fourth

century,

the

emperor

Julian ridiculed

Christians for

worshipping

a "Jew-

ish

corpse";

see

Against

the

Galileans,

in

Wilmer

Cave

Wright,

trans.,

The Works

of

the

Emperor

Julian

(3

vols.;

LCL;

Cambridge,

Mass.:

Harvard

University

Press,

1980)

3:376

(206a);

compare

3:414

(335b-c).

3Compare

Origen,

Comm. Rom. 4.2

(extant

in a Latin translation

by

Rufinus):

"The

sign

in

which

Christ

had come

was

a

'sign

of

contradiction'

(Luke 2:34),

because one

thing

was seen

in

him and

something

else

was

understood. Flesh was

being

seen,

but God was

being

believed"

(PG

14:968a-b);

John

Chrysostom,

De coemeterio et de cruce: "Even

though

that

which

is

uttered

is

one,

its

meaning

is

twofold"

(ei

K•aiT 6

Ey6gevov

Ev,

d&a 8txoiv r6 vootRevov,

said with

respect

to

the

passion

and

crucifixion;

PG

49:395,

lines

32-33);

and

Ps.-Chrysostom,

In sancta et

magna

parasceve:

"Today

he

is

bound

who

bound the waters

in

clouds,

loosing

those

who were bound

and

granting

freedom

to those who were

captive.

He

is

bound who

unbound

Lazarus

from the bonds

of

death. Led

as a

prisoner

to Pilate is

he who is escorted

by

myriads

of

angels

...

therefore

do not

be

ashamed,

but look

beyond

external

appearances

('r

catv6ogeva),

nd

beholding

man,

worship

God"

(PG

50:813-16).



142

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

derided

its faith

in a

crucified

God,

and

to

define

its

relationship

o

a

political

or-

der that

had

lately sought

to

destroy

it.

At the same

time,

Christian

hinkershad

to

confront the

challenge

of

Arianism,

a

culturally

sanctioned

religious

attitude

hat

refused

to

identify

the

suffering person

of Christ with

the transcendent

god

of

the

philosophers.

In

response

to these

challenges,

Gregory

of

Nyssa

and the author

of

the

Homily

on the Passion

and the

Cross

developed

a

sophisticated heory

of inter-

pretation,

a

poetics

of

representation

nvolving

rich

and unstable

ambiguities,

not

unlike

the intertextual

methods

of

contemporary

deconstruction.For these

writers,

scriptural

nterpretation

was

closely

coupled

with a

theological

vision

of the

person

of

Christ,

and thus

the

hermeneutical

possibilities

of

narrativewere

made to

reflect

the metanarrativeof divine-humanpossibility. That is, the interpretiveactivity

of

deception

and

deferral,

which refuses

to

fix

its

christological

referentwithin

a

closed

narrative

destiny,

virtualizes the

very

activity

of

Christ

himself,

the

Word

incarnate,

who

eludes

(and

indeed

exploits)

closure within

categories

constructed

by

demonic desire

and

the

culture

of

power.

0

Divine

Deception

Situatedwithin the hermeneutical rameworkof a

movement

from

"letter

o

spirit,"

the becrimsonedcanvas of the PassionNarrativewas given a rathercuriouscoat

of varnish.The

basic

principle

of

this

frameworkwas

that

meaningful

contents

are

often

concealed

behind

an

unprepossessing

xterior.

Things,

in

other

words,

are

not

always

what

they

seem. But this

principle,

patently

obvious in

and

of

itself,

blended

readily

with the

popular

Platonic belief

that the

world of truth

was

different

from

the

world

of

appearances.

The world of

appearances

was a world

of

change

and

flux.

It

was

an

empire

of

signs,

inherently

unstable,

ambiguous, dissembling,

and

transitive.It

was,

in a

word,

deceptive,

and

any figure

incarnate n

that world

was

just

as

likely

to

conceal the

truthas

to

reveal

t.

Admittedly,

he

category

of

deception

is anunlikely place fromwhichto launch a successfulapologeticalreconstruction

of the

Passion

Narratives;

but since

classical

antiquity

the

use

of

deception

was

sanctioned as

an

acceptable

pedagogical,

strategic,

and

therapeutic

device.4

For

example,

deception

was

permissible

for

fathers

who

thereby

concealed

their

affection

for

their children

in

order

to

discipline

them.

So

too for

physi-

4Here

I am indebted

to the work of David

Satran,

"Pedagogy

and Deceit in

the

Alexandrian

Theological

Tradition,"

n

Origeniana

Quinta.

Papers of

the

5th International

Origen Congress

(ed.

R.

J.

Daly;

Leuven:

Peeters,

1993)

119-24;

and

idem,

"Truth

and

Deception

in

the

Contra

Celsum,"

in Discorsi di verittd:

Paganesimo,

giudaismo

e cristianesimo a

confronto

nel Contro Celso di

Ori-

gene

(ed.

Lorenzo

Perrone;

Rome:

Institutum

patristicumAugustinianum,

1998)

213-24. See

also

J. W.

Trigg,

"Divine

Deception

and the

Truthfulness of

Scripture,"

n

Origen of

Alexandria:

His

World

and

Legacy

(ed.

Charles

Kannengiesser

and W. L.

Petersen;

Notre

Dame,

Ind.:

University

of Notre Dame

Press,

1988)

147-64;

and E.

L.

Wheeler,

Stratagem

and the

Vocabulary

of

Military

Trickery

Leiden:

Brill,

1988)

93-100.



NICHOLAS

P.

CONSTAS

143

cians,

who

were

expected

to

sugar

their

bitter

pills

and conceal their

sharpened

scalpels

beneath

the surface

of a

sponge.

Ancient

philosophers

also dealt

with

the

question

of falsehood

and

deception.

Plato's Lesser

Hippias,

for

instance,

deals

systematically

with

lying

and deceit in the context

of a debate

about who

was

the

greatest

Homeric

hero:

honorableAchilles

("true

and

simple")

or

Odysseus

the

liar

("wily

and

false").

To

the

surprise

and

consternation

of historians of

philosophy,

Plato

weaves

the

crown

of

victory

for

Odysseus,

arguing

that

only

the liar

knows

what

the truth

s,

whereas the one

who knows

only

the

truth

does

not

truly

know

even

that.5

Given their

Olympian grasp

of

eternal

verities,

there

was no

end of

lying

and

trickeryamong

the Greek

and

Roman

gods,

and the use of

disguise

and

deceit is typically not a humanbut a divine strategy,a divine deception. Resting

on

a

broad

cultural

oundation,

and with a

distinguished iterary

and

philosophical

lineage,

the

category

of

deception

was

hurried

o

baptism

by

Christian

hinkers,

to

whom

this

study

now turns.

M

Gregory

of

Nyssa

and the

Fishhook

The Christian

redactionof

the notion of "divine

deception"

s

perhaps

best

known

through

the work

of the

fourth-centurybishop

and

theologian Gregory

of

Nyssa

(c. 335-395), whose metaphorof the fishhookrepresentsa decisive momentin his

dramatic

heory

of the atonement.

According

to

this

theory,

Satan

was

initially

de-

ceived

by

the

apparent

rdinariness

f Christ's

humanity

and

unwittingly

consumed

his mortal

body

in

death.

He

soon

discovered,

however,

that he had been

duped

into

biting

off more

than he could

chew:

Christ

is

divine,

and

therefore

mmortal,

and

the

unexpected presence

of

the

deity

in the bowels

of the

underworld

signaled

the

liberation

of

the dead from

the forces

of

death

and

decay.

In his

Catechetical

Discourse,

a somewhat

popularizing

handbook

of Christian

teaching,

Gregory

introduces

this

idea in the context of

a

striking

typological

reversal

in which

the

Saviorsets out to "deceive the deceiver":

Since

t

was

not

n the nature f

the

opposing ower

o

undergo

he unveiled

manifestation

(yugvilv

ig6vetav)

of

God,

he

deity

was

hidden

'vE

pi60rj)

under

he veil

(npoKcaoh~itgat)

f

our

nature,

o

that,

as with

ravenous

ish,

the

hook

(ayl7toGpov)

f

the

deitymight

be

gulped

down

along

withthe bait

(68~riap)

f theflesh.

..

In

this

way,

he who

practiced

eception

6

&inarc(v)

5A

similar

argument

runs

through

the work of

Roy

A.

Rappaport,

Ritual and

Religion

in

the

Making

of

Humanity (Cambridge:

Cambridge

University

Press,

1999),

which deals

extensively

with

lies

and

deception.

The conventional

nature

of

language,

the author

argues,

facilitates

lying,

and the

very

"freedom of

the

sign

from

the

signified enlarges

the

possibilities

for falsehood."

The

ability

to

prevaricate

is

thus

a basic

"design

feature" of

language,

in

support

of

which

Rappaport

cites

Buber:

"A lie was

possible

only

after

a

creature, man,

was

capable

of

conceiving

the

being

of

truth"

ibid.,

11-13).



144

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

receives the

very

same

in return.

He who first

deceived

(7upoan•acioa;)

u-

manity

by

the

bait

of sensual

pleasure

is himself

deceived

(d•cazarat)

by

the

presence

of the

human

form.

And

whereas

the

enemy

wrought

his

deception

(&drdnTl)

or the ruin of our

nature,

the wise

one

(6

aooog)

used

his

plan

of

deception

(irnivota

Tfg;

dXrdtrg)

or salvation.6

Gregory

makes further

use

of

the

image

of the

fishhook

in a

related

passage

from

his sermon

on

the

resurrection,

this

time

foregrounding

the

figure

of

Wisdom,

who

cleverly

made the

wise

look rather

foolish. Here

is

the

text:

"Omnipotent

isdom"

(rtavto86vago;g

oia,

Wis

7:23;

1

Cor

1:24),

oming

into the "heart

of the

earth"

Matt

12:40),

was

able to

make

"utterly

oolish"

(Ka'ntragopvat,ompareRom 1:22; 1 Cor 1:18) thatgreat"Mind" compare

Isa

10:12)

whichdwells

n

it,

turning

is counsel

o

folly,

and

catching

he

wise one

(oo6o;)

in his

cunning navoupyia)

nd

urning

ack

upon

himhis

cleverdevices

(oo4a EyXetpigPatr).

or this

reason,

having

swallowed he

bait

(8ilxEap)

f

the

flesh,

he

was

pierced

with

the

fishhook

(yK•ytoTpov)

f

deity,

andso the

dragon

8pdio0v)

was

caught

withthe

fishhook,

ust

as it

is

said in

the book

of

Job,

"You hallcatch he

dragon

with

a

fishhook"

Job

40:25).7

6Cat.

Disc.

24,

26;

ed. E.

Mitihlenberg,Gregorii Nysseni

Oratio catechetica

(GNO

3.4;

Leiden:

Brill,

1996)

62,

lines

3-10;

and

65-66,

lines

21-25,

1-3;

reprinted

with a

French

translation,

introduction,

and notes

by Raymond

Winling,

Discours

catichitique

(SC

453;

Paris:

Cerf,

2000)

254-64;

see also

L.

F.

Mateo-Seco,

El

concepto

de

salvation n

la

'Oratio

Catechetica

Magna'

e

S.

Gregorio

de

Nisa,"

ScrTh

4

(1972)

145-71.

Compare

he

remarks f

Gregory's

rother

Basil,

for whom the

image

of

a

fish

caught

on a

hook

is a

type

of the

final retributionfor acts of

avarice

and

oppression

(Hex.

7.3;

ed. Stanislas

Giet,

Homilies sur

l'Hexadmniron

SC

26;

Paris:

Cerf,

1968]

404,

line

9);

and those

of

Gregory's contemporary

and

colleague, Gregory

Nazianzus: "The

'light

shines in the darkness'

(John 1:5)

of

this life

and

in

this weak

flesh,

and

though persecuted

by

the

darkness,

it is

not

'overtaken'

(John 1:5)

by

it-I mean

by

the

opposing power

which

shamelessly

assailed the visible

(do

catvop•ev•)

Adam, but instead encountered God and was defeated .... For

since the

specious

advocate

(oo0toTni;)

of

evil

baited us with

the

promise

of

divinity (compare

Gen

3:6),

he

was

himself baited

by

the snare

(rp6p3Xllga)

f

the

flesh. In

attacking

[the new]

Adam,

he

encountered

God,

and the condemnation

of

the

flesh was

abolished

(Rom

5:16,

18),

death

being

put

to

death

by

the

flesh"

(Or.

39.3, 13,

ed.

C. Moreschini and

P.

Gallay,

Discours 38-41

[SC 358;

Paris:

Cerf,

1990]

152,

lines

9-13;

178,

lines

22-27);

compare

Or.

30.6,

ed.

P.

Gallay,

Discours

27-31

(SC 250;

Paris:

Cerf,

1978)

236;

Or.

40.10,

ed.

C. Moreschini and P.

Gallay,

Discours

38-41,

216;

and

John

Egan,

"The Deceit

of

the Devil

according

to

Gregory

Nazianzus," StPat

22

(1989)

8-13,

who deals

extensively

with this

passage.

'Gregory

of

Nyssa,

On the

Three-Day

Period between the

Death and Resurrection

of

Christ;

ed. Ernest

Gebhardt

(GNO

9;

Leiden:

Brill,

1967)

280-81,

lines

16-18,

4-16. See the

detailed

commentary

on this

passage

by

HubertusR.

Drobner,

Gregor

von

Nyssa.

Die Drei

Tage

zwischen

Tod

und

Auferstehung

unseres Herrn Jesus

Christus

(Leiden:

Brill,

1982) 86-91;

as well as

the

remarks of Mariette

Candvet,

"Nature

du mal

et

6conomie

du

salut

chez

Gr6goire

de

Nysse,"

RSR

56

(1968)

87-95;

and Andreas

Spira,

"Der Descensus ad

Infernos in der

OsterpredigtGregors

von

Nyssa

De Tridui

Spatio,"

in The Easter

Sermons

of Gregory

of Nyssa

(ed.

idem;

Cambridge,

Mass.:

The

Philadelphia

Patristic

Foundation,

1981)

195-261,

esp.

230-38.



NICHOLAS

P.

CONSTAS 145

In the first of these

two

passages, Gregory

takes

as his

point

of

departure

he

established

theological

belief that the

deity graciously

reveals itself

in

forms

proportionate

o the limited

capacities

of

the human mind.

Here,

however,

the

gift

of

divine

accommodation

s

provocatively

offered

to

the

devil,

inasmuch as

the

divinity

renders

tself an

object

of desire to

the

mind of

the

"opposing

power."

Implicating

tself

in the

gaze

of the

demonic,

the incarnateGod

seductively

appears

as

so

much

"bait,"

a

graphic image

of

predatorydeception

by

means of

which,

according

o

Gregory,

he

deity paradoxically

appropriates

he devil's

own artifice.

Anticipating

he

objection

that he has

committed God

to

a course of unethical

(not

to mention

diabolical)

action,

Gregory argues

that it was

only right

that an act

of

deceptionshould be undoneby an act of deception,a notion that accords with the

"riddling

definition

of

justice

used

by

the

poets"

outlined

by

Plato

in

the

Republic

(1.332c-d).

Gregory

further

stresses that God's

deceit,

unlike the

devil's,

was enacted for

therapeuticpurposes,

thereby

classifying

it

among

forms of

deception culturally

acceptable

n

late

antiquity.

f

God

deceives,

tempts,

and

seduces,

it

is to

capture,

immolate,

and

ultimately

redeem the desire

of

the

other.

In the

second

passage

cited

above,

Gregory

ascribes hese activities

to

"Omnipotent

Wisdom,"

a

feminine

figure

who is herself

the

"very

being

of

Christ": he irreducible

ontological

core,

as it

were,

of the various

guises

andmodalities of divine

revelation,

including

her

persona

as

"Word."8

he

instability

of the revealed

text and

the

various reversals

of

its

referents

promotedby Gregory's exegesis

are here

matched

by

the

gender

reversal of

Christ,

who

in

the

form of Wisdom

appears

as a femme fatale dressed

quite literally

to kill.

As these

two extracts

indicate,

the

fishhook is a device

that

encapsulates Gregory's

theory

of "salvation

through deception."

This

theory,

however,

has not been

kindly

received in

contemporary

scholarship.

Scholarly

assessments of

Gregory

of

Nyssa's

fishhook

have

generally

been

ratherprimandpatronizing.HastingsRashdall called Gregory's theory"childish

and

immoral."9

J.

A.

MacCullough

deemed it

"perverted

and

repulsive."'0

Gustaf

8Elsewhere,

n the first

homily

of

his

Commentary

on the

Song of Songs, Gregory

writes,

"The

wisdom of Solomon

has no measure

or

limit

(d6ptozo;)

.

. . but do

not

suppose

that

I

mean the

same Solomon from Bersabee. Another Solomon is

signified

here,

one who

is also

descended from

David

according

to the

flesh.

This one

comprehends

the

knowledge

(yv~iotg)

of

all

things.

His

very

being

(T6 Evvat)

is

Wisdom";

ed. H.

Langerbeck

(GNO

6;

Leiden:

Brill,

1960)

17,

lines 1-6. On

Wisdom

as the true

being

of

Christ,

see

also

Origen,

Prin.

1.2;

ed. Henri

Crouzel

and Manlio

Sim-

onetti,

Traitddes

principes

(SC

252;

Paris:

Cerf,

1978)

126;

and

idem,

Commentary

on

John, 1.289;

ed.

Cecile

Blanc,

Commentaire

sur saint Jean

(SC

120

bis;

Paris:

Cerf,

1996),

where Prov

8.22 is

used to subordinatethe

"Logos"

(of

John

1:1)

to

"Wisdom,"

because "wisdom

precedes

the word

that announces

it."

9Hastings

Rashdall,

The

Idea

of

Atonement

(London:

Macmillan,

1925)

364.

10J.

A.

MacCullough,

The

Harrowing of

Hell:

A

Comparative Study of

an

Early

Christian

Doctrine

(Edinburgh:

T&T

Clark,

1930)

205;

MacCullough

also has in

view

the

larger question

of

the "devil's

rights"

over

fallen

humanity.



146 HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

Aul6n

found

t

"highlyobjectionable, isgusting

and

grotesque."'1

George

Florovsky

characterized

t

as

"self-contradictory,

nconclusive

and

inappropriate.""2

einhold

Niebuhr ound it

"unimportant

nd

implausible."l3Cyril

Richardson onfessed

that

it

was

"repellent,"l4

while

Frances

Young

has twice

characterized t as

a

"crude

and distasteful

trick."'"

Anthony

Meredithdismissed

Gregory's

dea as "novel

and

strange,"

noting

that t

"hardly

had

many

followers."l6

Richard

Jakob

Kees,

perhaps

having

read

some

of these

assessments,

does not considerthe

image

of the fishhook

in

his

recent

monograph

on

Gregory's

Catechetical

Discourse.'7

Disdain for

Gregory's

fishhook

and the

theory

of divine

deception

is

clearly

an established

topos

within

contemporary

scholarship,

and,

like

many scholarly

constructions,it has distortedthe natureof the actual evidence. Far from being

a

grotesque

idiosyncracy

limited to the

writings

of

Gregory

of

Nyssa,

the

image

of

a

divine

fishhook

baited with

the flesh of

Christ

was used

by

dozens

of writers

from

the mid-fourth

through

the

seventh centuries and

beyond, including

such

notables

as

Athanasius,

John

Chrysostom,

John of

Damascus,

and Maximus the

Confessor,

to mention

only

a

few.'"

Among

Latin

writers,

Augustine

introduced

"Gustaf

Aul6n,

Christus

Victor.

An

Historical

Study

of

the Three Main

Types of

the

Idea

of

Atonement(1931; New York:Macmillan, 1986) 47.

'2George

Florovsky,

The Eastern Fathers

of

the Fourth

Century

(1933;

repr.,

Belmont,

Mass.:

Notable

and Academic

Books,

1987)

195,

cited

approvingly by

Jaroslav

Pelikan,

Christianity

and

Classical

Culture:The

Metamorphosis

ofNatural

Theology

n

the ChristianEncounterwith

Hellenism

(New

Haven:

Yale

University

Press,

1993)

272-73.

13Reinhold

Niebuhr,

Human

Destiny

(vol.

2

of The Nature and

Destiny of

Man;

New

York:

Charles

Scribners'

Sons,

1941)

59-60.

14Cyril

Richardson. "Introduction o

Gregory

of

Nyssa,"

in

Christology

of

the Later

Fathers

(ed.

Edward

R.

Hardy; Philadelphia:

Westminster,

1954)

247.

'5Frances

Young,

The

Use

of Sacrificial

Ideas

in

Greek Christian Writers

rom

the New

Testament

to John

Chrysostom

(Cambridge,

Mass.:

Philadelphia

Patristic

Foundation,

1979)

209;

and

eadem,

FromNicaea to Chalcedon (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1983) 121.

"6Anthony

Meredith,

The

Cappadocians

(Crestwood:

St. Vladimir's

Seminary

Press,

1995)

94.

17Richard

Jakob

Kees,

Die Lehre von der Oikonomia Gottes in der Oratio

Catechetica

Gregors

von

Nyssa

(Leiden:

Brill,

1995).

An

exception

is the work

of

Franz Hilt

(Des

heil.

Gregor

von

Nyssa

Lehre

vom Menschen

systematisch

dargestellt

von

Franz

Hilt

[K61n,

1890]

144-50),

who

recognized

the

importance

of this theme

in

Gregory's

soteriology;

see also the remarks

of

Hiibner

(n.

52,

below),

who builds on

Hilt's

work,

describing

Gregory's

metaphor

of the fishhook as

"ein

zentrales

Theologumenon

seiner

Soteriologie."

'sFor

Athanasius,

see n.

37,

below. For

Chrysostom,

see Hom.

Matt. 26:39

(PG

61:753).

For

John of

Damascus,

see

Expositio fidei

45.3.1;

ed. Boniface

Kotter,

Die

Schriften

des Johannes

von

Damaskos,

vol. 2

(Berlin:

Walter de

Gruyter,

1973)

106-7.

For

further

references,

see

Drob-

ner, Die Drei

Tage,

89 n. 103. Note that the fishhook also

appears

in the

liturgical

texts of the

Orthodox Church:

"With

divinely-wise

bait thou didst hook the author of

evil,

the

dragon

of the

deep,

binding

him in Tartaruswith bonds of

darkness"

Pentecostarion

[Boston:

Holy Transfigura-

tion, 1990]

423).

Given the

continuity

between the

flesh

of Christ and

Mary, Ps.-Epiphanius

praises

the

Virgin

as the

"bait

of

the

spiritual

fish-hook,

for in

you

the

divinity

is the

hook"

(Homily

5;

PG

43:489d);

compare

dem,

Homily

4,

where

the

devil

says:

"I was

deceived

by

the son of

Mary,

not



NICHOLAS

P.

CONSTAS

147

a variationon this theme

in

the form of a

mousetrap

baited with

Christ's

blood.19

Augustine(perhapsby way

of Peter

Lombard,

who

quotes him)

was

undoubtedly

the

source

for the

iconography

of the

fifteenth-century

M6rode

altarpiece,

which,

at

the

moment of the

incarnation,

depicts Joseph

seated

in

his

carpentry

hop,

hav-

ing just

completed

work on

a

mousetrap.20

he

altarpiece's symbolic

depiction

of

divine

deception,

not at the time of the

passion,

but at the moment of

the

incarna-

tion,

suggests

that the enfleshment

of the

deity

is

itself an act of

concealment,

a

theme

that I shall consider below.

Returning

to

the

image

of the

fishhook,

it

should

be

noted that this

seemingly

peculiar

metaphor

was

not invented

ex

nihilo and

subsequently imposed upon

Scripture.Rather,t was derived rom atheologicallyconsistentconflationof several

biblical

passages, including

Job

40-41;

Ps 104:26

(LXX 03:26);

and

Isa

27:1,

all of

which

are concerned with

mocking

the

cosmic

dragon

and

dragging

him

up

from

the

depths

of the sea

on

a

fishhook.21

Moreover,

one does not

typically

go

fishing

in

mythopoetic ponds

without

a

worm,

and

so

Ps 22:6

(LXX

1:6,

"I

am a worm

knowing

that God

had

concealed himself

(Kp1tterat)

in

a human

body;

I

beheld him enfolded

(netptKei[tevov)

in a human

body,

and I

mistook him

for

a

mere

man

(ivOpomnov

"ztbyv

voticyag

AtkX6v)"

PG

43:481c-d).

19Daniel . Saunders("TheDevil and theDivinity of Christ,"Theologial Studies9 [1948] 536-53)

provides

an

incisive

survey

of this theme

from

Augustine

through Aquinas

and

Cajetan.

20Augustine,

Sermon

130:

"Along

came

the

redeemer and

conquered

the deceiver. And what

did our

redeemer do

to

our

captor?

To

pay

our

price,

he

set

the

mousetrap

of his

cross;

as

bait

he

placed

there

his

own blood.

While

the

devil,

though,

was able to

shed

that

blood,

he did

not

earn

the

right

to drink it.

And because

he

shed the

blood

of

one who was not his

debtor,

he

was

ordered

to release

those who were his

debtors"

(PL 38:726-27).

The

translator

of this

passage,

Edmund

Hill

(The

Works

of

Augustine:

Sermons

111/4

[Brooklyn:

New

City

Press,

1992]

311),

notes that this

is

"one

of

Augustine's

favorite,

and

more

grotesque

metaphors

for

explaining

how

Christ's

death

has

delivered

us from the devil's clutches."

Peter

Lombard

quotes

the sermon in his

Sententia

in

iv Libris

Distinctae

(3

vols.;

Grottaferrata:

Editiones

Collegii

S.

Bonaventurae

ad

Claras

Aquas,

1971-1981)

2:120; see J.Rivibre,"MuscipulaDiaboli: Origeneet le sens d'une image augustinienne,"Thdologie

ancienne

et

mddidvale

1

(1929)

484-96;

and

Meyer Schapiro, "Muscipula

Diaboli: The

Symbol-

ism of

the

Mdrode

Altarpiece,"

Art

Bulletin 28

(1945)

81-89.

See also C.

W.

Marx,

The

Devil's

Rights

and the

Redemption

in the Literature

of

Medieval

England

(Woodbridge,

Suffolk:

D.

S.

Brewer,

1995);

and Kathleen M.

Ashley,

"The

Guiler

Beguiled:

Christ and Satan as

Theological

Tricksters

in

Medieval

Religious

Literature,"

Criticism:

A

Quarterly for

Literature and the Arts

24,

no.

2

(1982)

126-37.

21Job

0:25-41:26

(LXX):

But wilt thou catch

the

dragon

(8pdmKov)

ith a

fish-hook

(6yxttrpov)

and

put

a

halter about his nose? Or wilt

thou fasten a

ring

in his

nostril,

and bore his

lip

with a

clasp?

...

But

thou shalt

lay thy

hand

upon

him

once,

remembering

the war that is

waged by

his

mouth ..

There is

nothing upon

the earth

like

him,

formed

to

be

sported

with

(7yK•aanai?ce0at)

by my

angels.

He beholds

every

high thing,

and he is

king

of all that are in the waters." Ps 104:

26

(Lxx

103:26):

"This

dragon

whom thou

hast

made to

sport

('tgnai•etv)

in

it

(i.e.,

in

the

sea)."

Isa 27:1:

"In that

day

God shall

bring

his

holy

and

great

and

strong

sword

upon

the

dragon,

even

the

serpent

that

flees,

upon

the

dragon,

the crooked

serpent:

he shall

destroy

the

dragon."

Transla-

tions

from Lancelot

C. L.

Brenton,

The

Septuagint

with

Apocrypha

(1851;

repr., Peabody,

Mass.:

Hendrickson,

1986).



148

HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

[oxK<0r]

and not

a

man")

was

granted

a

central

place

in this

tradition.Tied

to

Psalm

22,

the fishhook

was

thereby

anchored o

the center

of the Passion

Narrative

itself,

for

when Christ

cried out in

dereliction from the

cross,

it

was this

psalm's

first verse which

he

chose to

give

voice to his

pain.22

Patristic

exegetes

were thus

confrontedwith

the

striking mage

of the crucified

Christ

writhing

ike

a

worm on a

hook.23

These textual

patterns

were further nterlaced

with

John

3:14,

where

Christ's

elevation on the

cross

is

compared

o

that

of the bronze

serpent

60tg)

which

Moses

raised on a

pole

in the wilderness

(Num 21:8-9).

The

figure

of Jonah

swallowed

by

the whale and

regurgitated

ntact,

invoked

by

Christ as

a

foreshadowing

of

his

own death

and

resurrection

Matt 12:39-40),

was also influential

n

the

elaboration

of this exegetical metanarrative.24

Two texts

will serve to illustrate he

place

of "Christ

he

Worm"

n

the

subsequent

patristic

radition.

The first

s

from

a

letter written

by

the

sixth-century

Palestinian

ascetic

Barsanuphius

d.

ca.

545),

who

contrasts the

worm

of Psalm 22

with

the

"undying

worm" of

Mark

9:48

(cited

from Isa

66:24),

which

is said

to feed

like a

maggot

on the

flesh of the damned.

Barsanuphius

vers

that,

ust

as

those

Israelites

who were

bitten

by

serpents

were cured

by

the

"bronze

serpent"

n

the

book of

Numbers,

so too does

the

crucified worm of

Psalm 22

provide

the

antidoteto

the

afflictions caused

by

the worm

in

the

Gospel

of Mark:

This worm

[i.e.,

Christ]

ame for

my

sake

to

deliver

me

from

the

worm

of

corruption

which

corrupts

he humanrace.And

because

he

worm of

corruption

compare

Mark

:48),

which

corrupts

nd s

corrupted,oes

down

intothe wounds

ndcauses hem o

putrefy

nd

stink,

he

ncorruptible

orm

came,

of whom

t

is

said:

"I

am

a

worm

andnot a man"

LXX

s

21:6).

And

just

as the

corruptible

orm

plunges

nto the

wounds,

o

the

incorruptible

22Matt

7:46,

citing

Ps

22:1

(LXX

1:1):

"My

God,

my

God,

why

have

you

forsaken

me?"

Note

that the

Gospel

of

Luke,

written

with

the sensibilities

of

a

Greco-Roman

audience in

mind,

omits

the indecorous

cry

of dereliction.

23ComparePs.-Chrysostom,

In

illud,

simile est

regnum

coelorum

grano sinapis

(Matt

13:31):

"What does Isaiah

say?

'We saw

him,

but he had no

form nor

beauty,

but

his

form was

ignoble'

(Isa

53:2-3),

and this is

why

he called himself

a

'worm,'

for

he

says,

'I

am a

worm and

not a

man'

(Ps

22:6

[LXX

21:6]),

and in

Isaiah the Father

says

to him: 'Fear

not,

you

worm

Jacob'

(Isa

41:14),

and

afterwards,

calling

to mind his

burial,

he

says, 'Thy

inheritance

(Karad6ketlga

[sic];

LXX

KacTKacdlh

ga)

shall be with the worm'

(Isa 14:11),

for

just

like a wise

fisherman,

t

was

necessary

that he

place

his

flesh

like

a

worm on the

brilliantly shining

fishhook of his

divinity,

and

cast it into the

depths

of this

world,

and thus catch the

dragon

on a

hook,

so that

what was

written

in

Job

might

come to

pass,

'Thou

wilt

catch the

dragon

with a fish

hook'

(Job 40:25)"

(PG

64:23,

lines

20-32).

See also

Proclus

of

Constantinople

(d. 446),

Homily

29.24,

26: "Christ carried

the

cross

in

order to fish out

Adam from Tartarus ..

why

do

you

plot

in

vain,

O

devil? Christ

carries

a

cross

which

you

fashioned

to

your

own

ruin,

for

as a wise

fishermanhe

carries

the cross in

place

of

a

pole

in

order to

fish

out

Adam

from

Tartarus";

d. F. J.

Leroy,

L'Homile'tique

de

Proclus de

Constantinople

(Vatican

City:

Biblioteca

apostolica

vaticana,

1967)

211.

240n

the

dynamics

of

which,

see James

L.

Kugel,

In

Potiphar's

House: The

InterpretiveLife

of

Biblical Texts

(Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard

University

Press,

1994)

247-70.



NICHOLAS

P.

CONSTAS

149

worm

went

down into the "lower

parts

of the earth"

Eph

4:9),

and

from

there

began

o

destroy

ll the uncleanness f the

old

worm;

and

having

hus

cleansed hem

all,

he led them

up

andremained imselfwithout

orruption.

This s the wormwhichcleansed obof the wormof

corruptioncompare

ob

7:5;

25:6),

andwhich aid

o

him,"Arise,

irdup your

oins

ike a man"

Job

38:3).

Thiswormalso "drew ut

the

dragon

with a

hook"

Job

40:20)

while

hanging

n the tree

[i.e.,

of

the

cross].25

A

second

example

of this

motif

of "Christ he Worm"

may

be

found

among

the

works

of

an

author who wrote

under the name

of

Dionysius

the

Areopagite,

an

early-sixth-century

writer

deeply

indebted

to

the

theology

of

Gregory

of

Nyssa.

In his treatiseOn the Celestial Hierarchy,the psalmic worm appears n a bestiary

of "dissimilar

symbols

of the divine."

In

this

cabinet of

theriomorphic

curiosities,

the

deity

is

on

display

as

a

"lion"

(compare

Gen

49:9;

Hos

5:14;

Rev

5:5);

a

"panther"

Hos

13:7;

5:14);

a

"leopard" compare

Hos

13:7;

Rev

13:2);

and an

"angry

she-bear"

Hos 13:8),

although

the

prize

exhibit is the "lowliest and

most

ignoble

of

all,

for

the

experts

in

things

divine

gave

the

deity

the form

of

a

worm"

(Ps 22:6).

Dionysius

considers such

symbols

to be

particularlyappropriate

or the

unknowable

deity

which

paradoxically

"reveals" tself

only by

"concealment"

n

finite

(and

therefore

dissimilar)

orms

and names. The

invisible,

in

other

words,

can

entervisibility only at thecost of essentialmisrepresentation. nhis third etter,the

Areopagite

suggests

that the

mystery

of the Word incarnatecannot be reduced to

the surface

narratives

regarding

Jesus of Nazareth:

"The

divinity

remains hidden

even

after

ts

revelation,

or to

speak

more

divinely,

it is

hidden

in the

revelation;

for

the

mystery

of Jesus is

hidden,

and

may

be uttered

by

no

word

or

mind,

but even

when

spoken,

remains

unsaid,

and when

conceived,

unknown."The otherness

of

the

sign

its

utternonresemblance

o that

of

which

it is the

sign

and

presence

is

for

Dionysius

the

privileged

orm of

divine

self-manifestation,

he

perfect figuration

of that

which cannot be

figured.26

25Barsanuphius,ep.

62,

ed.

Frangois

Neyt

and

Paula de

Angelis-Noah,

Correspondance:

Barsanuphe

et

Jean

de

Gaza,

vol.

1

(SC

426;

Paris:

Cerf,

1997)

1:308-10.

I

am thankful

to

His

Grace

Bishop

Savas Zembillas of

Troas,

who

kindly provided

me

with this

reference,

along

with

the

English

translation from

his

unpublished manuscript.

260n

the Celestial

Hierarchy

2.5;

ed.

Giinter

Heil

and Adolf Martin

Ritter in

Corpus Dionysia-

cum,

vol.

2

(Berlin:

Walterde

Gruyter,

1991)

15,

line 20. For

Dionysius's concept

of

"dissimilarity"

(&vogLot6or;g)

he editors

provide

cross-references to

Gregory

of

Nyssa,

Contra Eunomium 1.620-23

and

2.234-28.

For the

passage

from Letter

3,

see Heil and

Ritter,

ibid.,

159:

ppuoto;g

8

iot

Kap

~geto

"iv

e

catVvaotv

i,

va

',

t6zorepov

E.ICo,

Kait

v

r•

E•,dveVt

cai

roiio yp 'Ioi

1c6qKp'•ovr

KQ1t

oi 3rvT XQyq

ooPTo

e

v6p

r6

o

'

cnr'

v

?1Kcdf

rnxr1Uplov,

aX

,?•

a

i

eyY6g•oVOV

ippryrov

gLVEt,

K]i

voo-ogevov

yvooyrov.



150

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

I

Pseudo-Athanasius's

Homily

on the

Passion and

the

Cross

As the texts cited above suggest, the worms and fishhooks of the Bible became

attached to

a

larger

theory

of dissimulation and

deception

that found

its fullest

application

n the narrativesof Christ's

passion

and death.

A

little-known

sermon

attributed o

Athanasiusof

Alexandria,

the

Homily

on the

Passion and

the

Cross,

applies

this

theory

to

virtually

the entire

narrative

of Christ's

ast

days

on

earth.As

its title

suggests,

the

homily

is

an

exegetical

sermon

expounding

he

meaning

of the

Passion

Narrative

n the

Gospel

of Matthew.

If

not written

by

Athanasius

himself,

the work

is

clearly

the

product

of

the

"school" of

Athanasius,

and

therefore

prob-

ably

stems from

ate-fourth-century

lexandria.27

he

setting

s the annual

iturgical

commemoration

f Christ's

passion,

and

"Athanasius"

hereafter

without

quotation

marks)

abors

endlessly

to make one

point:

namely,

that

Christiansshould not be

ashamed of the

suffering

of

Christ

or of his

cross.28

Athanasius's

apologia

crucis

hinges

on the notion

of divine

deception

(fishhook

included),

which

underlieshis

narrative

ubversion and

subsequentreinterpretation

f the

suffering

and

death

of

Christ.

The homiletical

drama

begins

with Satan's

fatal desire to

discover

the true

identity

of

Christ,

a

thing

he

was unable

to do

on

the

mountain

of

temptations.

Athanasius nformsthe congregation:

The devil wanted o know

what

he

was

unable o know

whenhe

tempted

him

[i.e.,

Christ]

n

the

mountain,

amely,

"whether

r not

he is the Son

of

God"

Luke

4:3).

At that imehe

was

put

to

shame,

and

kept

watch

i-rinlpt;

compare

Gen

3:14,

nrlpilotg)

orthetime

(icatp6g)

f his death.

For t is

writ-

ten

in

Luke

hat,

"When he devil

completed

ll

his

temptations,

e

departed

from

himuntil

an

opportune

ime"

(afXpt

catpoii,

Luke

4:13).

This

[i.e.,

the

passion]

s now

that ime.29

27The

Greek text of

the

homily

can be found

in

PG

28:185-250

(CPG 2247).

On the

attribution,

see Hubertus

R.

Drobner,

"Eine

Pseudo-Athanasianische

Osterpredigt

tiber

die

Wahrheit

Gottes

und ihre

Erftillung,"

n Christian Faith and

Greek

Philosophy

in Late

Antiquity.

Essays

in

Tribute

to

George Christopher

Stead

(ed.

Lionel

R.

Wickham,

et

al.;

Leiden:

Brill,

1993)

43-44;

Drobner

surveys

the

scholarship

on this

question.

Since the

late-nineteenth

century,

the

sermon has

been

variously

attributed o

Athanasius

(d. 373),

Eustathiusof

Antioch

(d.

ca.

345),

Marcellus

of

Ancyra

(d.

ca.

374),

Didymus

of

Alexandria

(d. 398),

and

to

an

anonymous

Palestinian

writer

of the mid-

fourth

century.

On the

basis

of

internal

evidence,

Drobner

dates the text to some time

before 350.

The text is also extant

in

Syriac

and

Armenian versions: see R. W.

Thompson,

Athanasiana

Syri-

aca

III,

CSCO

324

(1972)

89-138

(text);

CSCO 325

(1972)

61-96

(translation);

and

R.

P.

Casey,

"Armenian

Manuscripts

of St. Athanasius of

Alexandria,"

HTR 24

(1931)

43-59.

28Compare

Ps.-Chrysostom,

De

confessione pretiosae

crucis

(PG

52:841-44),

which deals

extensively

with this same theme.

29PG

8:209,

lines 25-32.

The

fourth-century

Arians

argued

hatChrist's

emptation

n

the mountain

was a

scripturalproof against

his

divinity;

see

Athanasius,

C.

Ar. 3.56-57

(PG

26:440b-441c);

in

this

context,

Athanasius

does

not invoke the

theory

of

divine

deception,

but see

n.

30,

below.



NICHOLAS

P.

CONSTAS

151

Fearing,

however,

direct

confrontation

with the

"divine and

unapproachable

power" (ibid.,

lines

39-40),

Satan must

operate offstage, by inciting

the

Jews,

provoking

the

Romans,

and

rousing

the rabble of Jerusalem. But

"because

the

Savior

knew that the devil's

plan depended

on the

knowledge

[of

his

identity],

he

concealed

(1n'iacpunr'e)

his

divinity

and acted like a human

being

(6;bg

vmpono;

7ctohtz•itro)"

(ibid.,

lines

43-44).

In

this

regard,

Athanasius

asserts that

Christ

is

"just

ike

a

general

conducting

a

war,

who devised

(FoYparti1yr\oe)

great

and

wondrous

strategy,

and

so assumes the

appearance

(o•Xlaretir?at)

of one

stagger-

ing

under Satan's

power,

so that when

the

enemy

draws

near he

might completely

subdue

him."30

Athanasius furthercomparesChrist to a "noble wrestler"(y~vva-o;gnaXaty-

jilg)

who,

when

seeing

his

opponent

about to

take

flight, feigns

weakness

in

order

to

lure him

back

into the

ring.31

This

conceit of

the

wrestling

match is

continued

by

an allusion

to the

figure

of

Irus,

a

minor

character

who

appears

at the climax

of

Homer's

Odyssey.

Irus was one

of the

grasping

suitors who had

taken

over

Odysseus's

household

during

he latter's

prolonged

return

rom the

Trojan

war.32

n

a

stratagem

o reclaim his

home,

Odysseus adopts

the

persona

of

a

weak old

man

seeking

hospitality.

He

meets instead with the

swaggering

bravadoof

Irus,

who

un-

wittingly

challenges

the

disguised

hero to

a

wrestling

match.

To

everyone's

surprise,

Odysseus

gives

him a

thrashing,

andIrus is hauled out of the

palace

a brokenand

bloody pulp.

The

preacher's

audience

would

have been well versed in

this

Homeric

episode,

and we can

imagine

their

delight

when Athanasius

announcedthat

30PG

8:228,

lines 16-23.

Compare Origen,

Comm.

Rom. 5.10:

"Therewas a

just

and

noble

king,

who

was

waging

a war

against

an

unjust

tyrant,

but

trying

to avoid a violent and

bloody

conflict,

because some of

his

own men were

fighting

on the

tyrant's

side,

and

he wanted to free

them,

not

destroy

them.

He therefore

adopted

the

uniform of the

tyrant's

men,

until he

managed

to

persuade

them to desert

and to return

to their

proper kingdom,

and

succeeded in

'binding

the

strong

man'

in fetters,

destroying

his

'principalities

and

powers,'

and

carrying

off those he held

captive"

(PG

14:1051c-52a);

and

Athanasius,

C. Ar. 2.52: "As if

a

son,

when the servants

were

lost,

and in the

hands

of

the

enemy

... were sent

by

his

father to recover

them,

and

upon setting

out were to clothe

himself

in

a

garment

resembling

theirs,

and

disguise

himself as

one of them

(EnvSt6i5aKorot i•lv

6ioiav

CvEvtCOv

6f0ra,

Kai

GXgrlatat

E

iau6v

6;

icF-ivot),

lest the

enemy,

recognizing

him

as the

master,

should take

flight

and

prevent

his

descending

to those who were

hidden under the

earth"

(PG

26:257a-b).

31PG

28:209,

lines

47-49; 212,

lines 1-5. This form of

deception

is

discussed

in

the Lesser

Hippias:

the

better wrestler is

one who falls

purposely

than

one

who

falls

because he

cannot

help

it

(374a-b);

compare Dionysius

the

Areopagite,

On

Divine

Names 8.6: "That

sophist

[i.e.,

Elymas

the

Magician,

Acts

13:8]

imitates

inexperienced

wrestlers, who,

assuming

that their

adversaries

are

weak

(do&asvei;),

and

manfully making

a

show

of

fight

with

them when

absent,

courageously

box into

the

air

with

empty

blows,

and think

they

have

overcome their

opponents,

not

yet having

experienced

their rival's

strength

(8•1vattg;)";

ed. Beata

Regina

Suchla,

in

Corpus

Dionysiacum,

vol.

1

(Berlin:

Walter de

Grutyer,

1990)

203,

lines

17-22.

320d.

18.45-135.

On the

symbolic

function of Irus

in

Homer's

epic,

see Daniel

Levine,

"Odyssey

18: Iros as

a

Paradigm

for the

Suitors,"

Classical Journal

77

(1982)

200-1.



152

HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

the

devil,

having

arrogantly

presumed

(,toXLpioag)

gainst

the

Lord,

has

now

become another

Irus,

cast

forth

from the

universe,

and

trampled

upon

by

all ... and the

dragon

who boasted thathe was rich has been

stripped

of

all,

and he is now a

naked

and

impoverished

Irus,

utterly despoiled.33

It

is

rather

astonishing

to

encounter the

mythical figure

of

Odysseus,

the

archetypical

trickster,

making

a

cameo

appearance

in

a

passion

sermon

in order

to

vindicate

the

sufferings

of Christ.34Like

a

wily Odysseus,

Christ

deploys

a

strategy

of

deception

in

order

to

lure the

devil

into mortal combat at the

climax of a Christian

epic.

This

strategy

is

particularly pronounced

in the

garden

of

Gethsemane,

where

the weakness of Christ is

reconfigured

as an act

of deliberate

deception

calculated

to destroy the devil:

And this is

why

he was "distressed"around he time of his

death,

and

began

to

"grieve,"

and

"prayed

that

the

cup might pass

from

him"

(Matt 26:39),

and cried

out,

"The

spirit

is

willing

but the flesh is weak"

(Matt

26:41)....

But when

the evil

one

heard the

Lord

saying,

"The

spirit

is

willing

but

the

flesh is

weak,"

he

[mistakenly]

hought

that the Wordwas

weakened

together

(ouvrieavert)

with

the

body,

and

not

rather

hat the

body

was

strengthened

y

the

power

of

the

Word

(t

8)uvdlget

oi

A6yo0

ovto~)VtCX

icaA

6

'tOta).35

Thiscleverly scriptedagonyin thegardensuccessfullydupesthedevilinasmuch

as the

spectacle

of Christ's emotional weakness is

in

fact

a

grand

theaterof diver-

sion.

Viewed

through

Athanasius's nversive

ooking glass,

nothing

s what

t

seems

to

be,

and when the

homilist

arrives at the

scourging

of Christ

by

the

soldiers,

33PG

28:233,

lines

12-14; 236,

lines 11-13.

Compare

Athanasius,

Vit.

Ant.,

5.6-7:

"The

entire

experience put

the

enemy

to shame

(tp6og

aioxvrlqv).

Indeed,

he who had

thought

he

was

like

to

God,

was here made a fool

by

a

stripling

of

a man

(r't6n

eaviKcou

viv

Etnaitzro).

He

who

in

his

conceit disdained

flesh and

blood,

was now

routed

(&vatpF'ni-Eo)

y

a man

in

the

flesh";

ed.

G.

J.

M. Bartelink,Vied'Antoine(SC 400; Paris:Cerf, 1994) 144, lines 35-40. CompareVit.Ant.41.3-5,

where the devil

says:

/yib y&p

dteOEViig7jOVa

.

.

Ol)Ki•t

t6tov

F

XO.

..

6

yp

Xpto(r;bg X0v

t&o0Ev•-i

•

rE

teltOi••C•

Kai

w•alapakXv

•ay'gvoteev

(ed.

Bartelink,

246,

lines

10-19).

34Parallels

between Christ and

Odysseus

were not uncommon

in

Christian

antiquity, although

they

were not

normally

introduced

into sermons on the

passion;

see Jean

P6pin,

"The Platonic

and

Christian

Ulysses,"

in

Neoplatonism

and

Christian

Thought

(ed.

Dominic J.

O'Meara;

Albany:

State

University

of New

York

Press,

1982)

3-18;

Philip

Sellew,

"Achilles

or

Christ?

Porphyry

and

Didymus

in Debate

over

Allegorical Interpretation,"

HTR

82

(1989)

79-100;

Dennis Ronald

MacDonald,

"Homer

in

the

Early

Church,"

in

idem,

Christianizing

Homer:

The

Odyssey,

Plato,

and the

Acts

of

Andrew

(Oxford:

Oxford

University

Press,

1994)

17-34;

and J.

Danidlou,

"Homer

in the Fathers of

the

Church,"

n

idem,

Gospel

Message

and

Hellenistic

Culture

(trans.

John Austin

Baker;

Philadelphia:

Westminster,

1973)

75-105. That both

Odysseus

and

Christ

suffered

provided

the

basic

point

of

comparison;

see

Sophocles,

frag.

880N: "In the

eyes

of men I

am

truly

what

my

name

'Odysseus'

means,

for

the

impious

in

large

numbers have made me

suffer

(C0•h6oavzo)."

35PG

8:212,

lines

7-11;

216,

lines 29-32. The

language

of "weakness"and

"strength"

s

derived

from

2

Cor

13:4: "If he

was crucified

in

weakness

(a&0oiveta),

he lives

by

the

power

(16vatg);)

of

God"

(compare

Luke

22:43).



NICHOLAS

P.

CONSTAS 153

his audience

beholds,

not the robe of

mockery,

nor the crown

of

thorns,

jeering

soldiers,

or death

by crucifixion,

but rather

an

imperial

and indeed

divine

triumph,

complete

with

royal

purple

robe,

solemn

crowning,

acclamation of

kingship by

the

military,

dramatic

spoliation

of the

enemy,

and

public

adventus

with the

trophy

of

the

cross.36

Throughout

he

sermon,

Athanasius

repeatedlypoints

out

that,

contrary

to

appearances,

the

cross

is

not

a

sign

of

shame

and

defeat,

but

is

instead the

very

weapon

that slew death:

On the fishhook

of

your humanity

iv

av(pontivo(p

yrciapo),

fastened to the

trophy

of the

cross,

you

led about the

dragon,

the

serpent,

the

devil .

..

and

you toyed

(rnaigavrog)

with him from

the

very beginning,

creating

him

for

the purpose of mockery

(•waranai0eOat,

compare Job 41:25 [LXX];Ps 103:

26

[LXX]).37

Christ's

visible defeat

on the cross is

the

sign

of his invisible

(but

nonetheless

palpable)

triumph,

and,

contrary

to all

appearances,

it is

in fact the devil who

undergoes

crucifixion.38

Here the

homilist

seems indebted to

Origen's exegesis

of

Josh

8:29,

"Joshua

('Ifcolg)

hanged

the

king

of Gai on

a

double

tree

(EKpi~~gao

i)tt

'

6ou

6tSigoZi),"

in which

he states

the

following:

There

s

a

mystery

hidden n this

passage

which is "hidden

rom

many"

[com-

pare1 Cor2:7];but we will attempt o open it, not with ouropinionsbut with

the witness of sacred

scripture.

.

. The

"king

of Gai" can stand

for the devil.

But how he came

to be crucified on

a forked tree is worth

investigating.

The

cross of Christ

was

a

double cross.

You

might

think it

a

strange

and

novel

idea

when I

say

that the cross was

double,

but what I mean is

that it can be

considered

as

double,

or from two sides.

Because the Son of

God was cruci-

fied

visibly

in

the

flesh,

but

invisibly

on

the same

cross,

the

devil with "his

principalities

and

powers

was nailed to

the cross"

(cf.

Col

2:14-15).

Will not

this seem true to

you

if I

bring

Paul

forward

as

a

witness to

it? Hear then

what

he has to

say:

"Thatwhich

stood

against

us,"

he

says,

"he

set

aside,

nailing

360n

which

see

K.

Roddy,

"Politics and

Religion:

The

Roman

Imperial

Adventus

Ceremony

and

the Christian

Myth

of the

Harrowing

of

Hell,"

Apocrypha

11

(2000)

147-79.

Note

that

the

Homily

on the

Passion is

contemporary

with the

iconography

of the "Christus

Victor,"

in

which Christ is

shown

alive and

dispassionate

on

the

cross;

see John

R.

Martin,

"The

Dead Christ on the Cross

in

Byzantine

Art,"

in Late

Classical and Medieval

Studies

in Honor

of

Albert

Mathias

Friend,

Jr.

(ed.

K.

Weitzmann;

Princeton:

Princeton

University

Press,

1955);

and Anna

Kartsonis,

Anastasis: The

Making

of

an

Image

(Princeton:

Princeton

University

Press,

1986)

33-68,

99.

37PG

8:240,

lines

18-24.

Compare

Athanasius,

Vit.Ant. 24.4-5: "He

[i.e.,

the

devil]

overlooks

how

he was

dragged

around

with a

hook

(dyiiaTrpc)

like

a

dragon by

the

savior,

haltered around

his snout like a beast of

burden,

and had his nostrils

ringed

like a

runaway,

and his

lips pierced

through

by

an

iron

band"

(ed.

Bartelink, 202,

lines

23-25).

38Compare

bid.,

5.3:

"The

enemy

saw that he

was

powerless

in the face

of

Antony's

determina-

tion

and that is was rather

he who was

being

bested

(gpdiL

v

'oaur'v

KaT••oTaXcto6Evov)

because of

the man's steadfastness

and

vanquished

(dvarpenxt6gavov)

by

his

solid

faith

and routed

by Antony's

constant

prayer"

(ed.

Bartelink, 142,

lines

13-16).



154 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

it

to

the

cross.

He disarmed

he

principalities

nd

powers

and

madea

public

example

f

them,

riumphing

verthemon the cross"

Col

2:14-15).39

Origen'smetaphysic

of

crucifixion,

domesticated

n

popular

ermonson the

passion,

was

eventually

incorporated

nto the

hymnology

of

the

Byzantine

church.In

the

first stanza of

a

liturgical poem

written

by

Romanos

the

Melode

(d.

ca.

555),

the

foot of

the

cross,

planted

on the summit

of

Golgotha,

descends

deep

into the

earth,

where it

impales

the

body

of

Hades,

who

cries: "Who has fixed

a nail in

my

heart?

A

wooden lance

(X6yXir)

as

suddenly pierced

me

(cK

vzrflEv;

compare

John

19:

37;

Rev

1:7)

and

I

am

being

torn

apart "

n the third

stanza,

the

poet

describes

the

cross

as a

cosmic

tree,

the roots

of

which,

Hell

complains,

"have entered

my

soul;

they

have

gone

down into

my

depths "40

Seduction

in

the Garden

These dramatic

reversals

are

paralleled

n

a

large

numberof

patristic

sermons

on

the

passion

which

eventually

became

part

of the

Byzantine

lectionary.Despite

the

centrality

of

the

cross,

however,

the

pivotal

moment

n

these sermons s not

the

crucifixion,

but rather

he

scene

in

the

garden

of Gethsemane.

The

agony

of

Christ

in

the

garden

marks

an

important

moment

n

the metanarrative f divine

deception,

for it is here that the devil is utterlyseducedby the hypnotic flickeringof Christ's

humanity.

n a

pseudo-Chrysostomic

ermon

which deals

extensively

with

Matt

26:

39,

Satan

says,

"I

have

been

deceived,

for

who would

not be tricked

by

such

words?

For he was

frightened

in

the

face

of

death and

said,

'My

soul

is

very

sorrowful,

even

unto

death'

(Matt

26:38),

and

he

prayed

to the

Father

saying,

'Father,

f it

is

possible,

let this

cup

pass

from

me'

(Matt 26:39).

These

words

enticed

me like

bait."41The

deception

in

Gethsemane

s also critical to

the

narrative

equence

of

39Origen,

Hom. Josh. 8.6; ed. Annie Jaubert,Home'liessur Josue' (SC 71; Paris: Cerf, 1960)

232-34;

the

translation

is from Hans

Urs von

Balthasar,

Origen: Spirit

and

Fire

(trans.

Robert

J.

Daly; Washington,

D.C.:

Catholic

University

of

America

Press,

1984)

131.

On the

patristicexegesis

of

Col

2:14-15,

see Michael

E.

Stone,

Adam's

Contract

with

Satan:

The

Legend

of

the

Cheirograph

of

Adam

(Bloomington:

Indiana

University

Press,

2002).

40Romanos,

On

the

Victoryof

the

Cross;

ed. P.

Maas and

C.

A.

Trypanis,

Sancti Romani

Melodi

Cantica: Cantica Genuina

(Oxford:

Clarendon,

1997)

165.

ComparePs.-Chrysostom,

n

adorationem

venerandae crucem:

"Seeing

these

things,

the devil

cried,

'Who

has

plunged

a nail

into

my

heart?A

wooden lance has

pierced

me,

and I

am

torn to

pieces

...

being

defeated

by

the one

whom

I

thought

I

had defeated"

(PG

62:748,

lines

23-29).

Romanos's

poem

appears

to

have

been the

inspiration

or

the

tenth-century vory panel

of

the

crucifixion

now

at

the

Metropolitan

Museum of

Art,

in

which

the "base of the cross

pierces

the

stomach of the

reclining

figure

of

Hades

...

transform[ing]

he

crucifixion into

a

celebration

of the

Triumph

of

the Cross."

See

also

Charles

T.

Little,

"Triptych

Panel with

Crucifixion,"

in The

Glory of Byzantium

(ed.

Helen

C.

Evans

and William D.

Wixom;

New

York,

1997)

151-52;

and

Margaret

E. Frazer,

"Hades Stabbed

by

the

Cross of

Christ,"

Met-

ropolitan

Museum Journal 9

(1974)

153-61.

41Ps.-Chrysostom,

n

sancta

et

magna parasceve

(PG

62:722d).



NICHOLAS

P.

CONSTAS 155

the

Gospel of

Nicodemus:

"Satan

...

said to

Hades,

'There

is

one of the race of

the

Jews,

Jesus

by name,

who calls himself the Son of God.

But he is a man. ...

I

know

that

he

is a

man,

and I heard him

saying, "My

soul is

very

sorrowful,

even

to

death"

(Matt 26:38).'

...

[But

Hades

said,]

'If

you say

that

you

heard how he

feared

death,

he said this to mock

[or

"to

deceive"]

you

and

laugh

at

you, wishing

to seize

you

with a

strong

hand.'

"42

The

emphasis

on Christ's

deception

of the devil

in

the

garden

of

Gethsemane,

which seems to detract from

the

centrality

of

the

crucifixion,

is

in

fact a

typological

requirement

intended to

mirror

and thus reverse the

devil's

deception

of

Eve in the

garden

of Eden.

According

to the

logic

of

typological

recapitulation,

it was

only right

that an act of deception should be undone by deception. In Gethsemane, therefore,

Christ

deceived the deceiver

by

typologically appropriating

the

devil's

allurements

and

stratagems.

Just as the

agent

of a disease serves also as its

homeopathic

cure,

so

does the

primal deception

determine the

ingredients

for its own

neutralizing

antidote.43

Another Pseudo-Athanasian

text,

surrendering

unreservedly

to

the ver-

tiginous

currents of these

typological

associations,

hazards

the

following

account

of

the

divine

strategy

of

salvation:

This was the cause of the

incarnation,

and the reason

why

God

did

not

hunt

for the devil

in his unveiled

divinity,

because the devil

himself,

when he

decided to deceive

(ntXvfihot)

humanity,

did

not

approach

Eve with his

demonic natureunveiled.

Rather,

he

clothed

himself in the flesh of the

serpent

(compare

Gen

3:2),

and

in

this manner entered

paradise

and deceived

her.

For the

cunning

one

(86Xtog)

knew that

if

he

approached

Eve with his

demonic nature

unveiled,

he

would not

have

been

able to deceive her. This

is

why

he clothed himself

with the

serpent

as if with

flesh,

and

through

the

flesh-bearing serpent

he deceived

(FinXvdyaE)

ve. The

serpent

was

plainly

manifest

(A0aivrro),

but the devil was not. And

through

the visible

serpent

which

appeared

(th

Tro-

atvogCLvou),

the

invisible

(dte0spprlo;g)

erpent,

the devil, acted. For at the fall of our firstparent,two natures were brought

together

in

one

person

(8&1oaoet;

;v ivi

~

rposTniR

&anifyov).

o

too,

in

the

case

of

Christ,

two

natures--humanity

and

divinity-were

united

in

one

person

(&Go

36(etie;

i

siv Itp6ooirov ivd0'ijCtav).

And the

humanity

was

made

plainly

manifest,

but the

divinity

was not made

manifest,

and

through

the

humanity

which

appeared,

the invisible

divinity

acted. And these two

42Translation

n J. K.

Elliott,

The

Apocryphal

New Testament

(Oxford:

Clarendon,

1993)

187.

Compare

Acts

Thom.

45: "We

(demons)

believed we could

bring

him under

our

yoke

like the

rest,

but he

turned and held us in his

grip.

For we did not know him: he deceived us

by

his

despicable

form,

by

his

poverty

and

indigence.

When we looked

upon

him as such, we believed him to be a

man

bearing

flesh,

not

knowing

him

to

be the

one who

gave

life to

mankind";

ed. Max

Bonnet,

Acta

Thomae

(Leipzig:

H.

Mendelssohn,

1883)

162.

I

am thankful

to Daniel Caner

for this reference.

43As

Nyssa

himself

suggests:

"Two

persons may

both

mix

poison

(r6

~adptaKov)

with

food,

one

with the

design

of

taking

life,

the other

with the

design

of

saving

that

life;

the one

using

it as

poison,

the other

as an antitode to

poison"

(Cat.

Disc.

26;

ed.

Miihlenberg,

65,

lines

13-16).



156

HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

natures,

I mean

divinity

and

humanity,

restored

exiled

humanity

to

paradise.

And this is

why

God was incarnateand became

man.44

In

this

stunning typological

juxtaposition,

the devil

becomes a

serpent,

coiled around

a

tree,

in order to seduce

Eve,

in

response

to which

the

deity

becomes

a

worm

writhing

on

the

cross,

the tree

of

life,

in

order to seduce the

devil.

Equally

striking

is

the

daring

(and,

to

my

knowledge,

unparalleled)

use of

the

Chalcedonian

formula

of a

hypostatic,

or,

more

precisely, prosopic

union to

designate

Satan's

appearance

under the form of

the "most

crafty

of brutes"

(Gen

3:2).45

This

suggests,

in

other

words,

that the

incarnation of

the

Logos

mirrors

and

thus

reverses the "incarnation"

of

Satan

in the flesh

of the

serpent.

At the same

time,

it

should

be noted that

the

word

d&niyov

(translated

above as

"brought together")

means "carried

away,"

in

the sense

of

"being

abducted"

or

"led

astray,"

the

illicit

asymmetry

of which

serves

to

mitigate

the

shock

of

the

Chalcedonian

definitio

fidei applied

to

the

archetype

of

demonic

indwelling.

Although

Gregory

of

Nyssa

does not

mention the

scene

in the

garden

of Geth-

semane,

the

reversals described

above

are fundamental

to

the

argument

of his

Catechetical

Discourse,

cited

at the outset

of this

discussion.46

For

Gregory,

the

deception

of

Eve

in the

garden

of

Eden

provides

the

paradigm

for

the

divinity's

deception

of

the devil:

Beauty

exists both

in

truthand in

appearance.

Under

these circumstances

t

is a matter

of

risk

whether we

happen

to choose the real

beauty,

or whether

we are

diverted

from it

by

some

deception

(

•itan)

arising

from

appearance

(0atv6xogvov).

But

[in

the

garden

of

Eden]

the

mind

was diverted

to that

beauty

which

is

not

such,

being persuaded, hrough

he

deception

of

the

devil,

that that

was

beauty

which was

just

the

opposite.

For

his

deception

would

never have

succeeded,

had

not the illusion

(4avracia)

of

beauty

been

spread

over the

hook

(-yKiato•pov)

f

vice

like

a

bait.47

This is

why

the

deity

was

concealed

(1Ept~cahk?Cmerat)

n

flesh-in

order,

hat

is,

to secure

that

the

devil,

by looking

upon

something

congenial

(oTUv'popov)

and kindred

(ovyyev g)

to

himself,

might

have no fear

in

approaching

hat

44Ps.-Athanasius,

Quaestiones

aliae 20

(PG 28:793c-d).

45The

doctrinal

formula

promulgated

by

the

Council

of Chalcedon

(451)

states that Christ was

composed

of

"two

natures"

in

"one

person

and

one

hypostasis"

(Ev

686o

0p7Oetv

...

Kai

Eig

iv

Rtp6o(otov Kat~

tiav

7t6otratv,

ACO

2.1,

p.

129,

lines

30-33).

46Gregory

of

Nyssa

deals with

Matt

26:39

in his Antirrheticus

adversus

Apollinarium;

ed.

F.

Mtiller

(GNO

3.1;

Leiden:

Brill,

1958)

181.

Compare Gregory

Nazianzus,

Or.

30.12,

ed.

Gallay,

Discours

27-31,

248-52.

See also

n.

65,

below.

47Cat.

Disc.

21;

ed.

Mitihlenberg,

6,

lines

13-24;

compare

idem,

Life of

Moses 297: "Pleasure

is

truly

like evil's bait

(86iXap);

when it is cast out

(ntpophkltioa)

lightly,

it draws

gluttonous

souls

to the fishhook

(diyKtoGpov)

f

destruction,"

ed.

J.

Danielou,

La vie de

Moi'se

(SC

1

bis;

Paris:

Cerf,

2000)

308.



NICHOLAS

P.

CONSTAS 157

transcendent

ower,

deeming

whatwas

seen an

object

of

desire

(6•6UtOgrit6v)

....

This

invention,

whereby

the

enemy

was enabled to

apprehend

XtopTr6v)

thatwhich

cannot e

apprehended

Xcppriltov),

s a manifestationf

supreme

Wisdom.48

Gregory's

definition

of

beauty

as

existing

both

in

"truth

nd

appearance"

eflectshis

systematic

division

of human

reality

nto

mind and

sense,

and

being

and

nonbeing,

both

of

which

he

holds

together

n creative ension.49

This

dichotomous

organization

enables

him

here

to

distinguish sharply

between aesthetics and

ethics,

so

that the

responsibility

for

successfully negotiating

the

gap

between

the

(sensuous)

sign

and its

(intelligible)

referent alls

squarely

upon

human

freedom

and the

power

of

self-determination.50utthe mindcan fail to graspthe truenatureof the world,fall

prey

to

deception,

and mistake the

appearance

of

the

sign

for

that

which it seeks

to

render

present.

In

response,

the

deity

transgresses

the

divisions

of created

being,

incarnating

tself

within matter n order to

seduce

humanity

away

from its obses-

sion

with sensuous

signs.5

Gregory suggests,

moreover,

that such

a ruse will also

redeem

the

devil,

whose finite

malignancy

will

(he

argues

elsewhere)

acquiesce

to

infinite

goodness

like the shadow of an

eclipse yielding

to

"light

unbroken

by

darkness."

n the

end,

Gregory

muses,

the

"adversary

himself

will

not be

likely

to

dispute

that what

took

place

was

just

and

salutary."52

48Cat.

Disc.

23;

ed.

Miihlenberg,

60,

lines

8-13,

21-23.

49Compare

bid.,

6:

"Concerning

all

existing

things

there is a

twofold

manner of

apprehension

(Strfi

rig;

Katav6rotg)

inasmuch

as

they

are

divided

between what

pertains

to

the intellect and

what

to

the

senses,

and

there

is

nothing

in the natural order

extending

beyond

this division"

(ed.

Miihlenberg,

21,

lines

7-10).

As for the "movement"

of

created

being,

Gregory

of

Nyssa

notes

(Cat.

Disc.

21),

that it

likewise

has "two forms"

(816o 1'i8rlKtvil*Tes),

one

oriented toward

the

"goodness

of divine

infinity"

(,T6 tv

rtpbg

Trb

yaOov

dcEi

tv6evov

'

v

v

i

iTp6oSog

odaoytv

o'h

XEQt),

nd the other into the

"nullity

of

non-being"

(r'6

86

xp96;gt6

vavriov

ou

i

jnt6oataot;

iv

Lr

1'ti

6eoaradvat

Fo'rtv);

ed.

Mtihlenberg,

55-56, lines 23-24, 1-2. For a

study

of

Gregory's

use

of

these

categories,

see Alden A.

Mosshammer,

"Gregory

of

Nyssa

and

Christian

Hellenism,"

StPat

32

(1997)

136-67.

50Discussed

n Cat. Disc.

7

and

21;

ed.

Muihlenberg,

26-28 and

55-60.

See

also Werner Bei-

erwaltes,

"The

Love

of

Beauty

and the Love

of

God,"

in

Classical

Mediterranean

Spirituality:

Egyptian,

Greek,

Roman

(ed.

A.

H.

Armstrong;

New

York:

Crossroad,

1986)

293,

who notes that

"in

contrast

to modern

consciousness,

the

concept

of

beauty

or

the

beautiful

does

not

have

primarily

an

aesthetic

significance

but,

above

all,

an

ethical one.

The beautiful is

the

manifestation or outward

expression

of

the

Good,

an indication

that a

certain

form

or

being

or

existence

has

attained its

purpose

or

perfection

or that

it

is

perfection

itself."

"5Compare

thanasius,

Inc.

15: "Like

a

good

teacher

he came

down to

their level. ... He took

to

himself

a

body

and

moved

as a man

among

men,

drawing

to himself the

senses of all men

(tra;

atf0ilOsetgrtcdvcuv

v0pcotucv

itpooXapdwvet),

so that

those who were

seeking

God

in sensible

things

might apprehend

he

Father

through

the

works he

did in the

body";

ed.

Charles

Kannengiesser,

Sur

l'incarnation

du Verbe

(SC

199

bis;

Paris:

Cerf,

2000)

318.

52The

analogy

of the

eclipse

is from the De hominis

opificio

21.3

(PG

44:201d);

compare

Cat.

Disc.

6:

ol6v

Ttva

oYtav riT vaXcOppTet trig

d•Kivo;g IntotYPaivouaxv

(ed.

Miihlenberg,

23-24,



158

HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

0

The

Poetics of

Disguise

The metaphorof the fishhookand the theoryof divine deceptionserved to define

Christ as a

figure

who

was both within the tumult

of

the world and

yet radically

beyond

it. It

explained

how

the

sufferings

of Christdid not

compromise

but rather

enhanced his divine

status.

Finding strength

in

weakness

(compare

2

Cor

13:

4)

was,

as we have

seen,

accomplished through

the

systematic

bifurcationsof

a

twofold

exegesis,

a hermeneutical

practice

that virtualized

the

dualities of

Christ

himself.53

The

function of

doubling

as a

response

to

trauma and violence

has

recently

been studied

by Wendy

Doniger

in her work

Splitting

the

Difference,54

nd it will

be

instructiveto consider

our

patristic

sources

in

light

of

her

analysis

of

ancient

Greek

literary

raditions.

Doniger

observes that

subsequent

retellings

of Homer's

Iliad

tend to avoid

or

otherwise

eliminate the

abduction

and

rape

of Helen

of

Troy

by

Paris.

Such

retellings

usually suggested

that the

"real"

Helen had

never been

abductedat all: a double

had been taken in

her

place

while the

real Helen

of

Troy

remained

afe and

unaffected

by

the

rape

of her

phantom.55

o the

doubled

figure

of

Helen,

Doniger

adds the

story

of

Ixion,

inflamedwith love for

Hera,

who embraces

not the

goddess

but

a

cloud

thathas taken her

shape;

and

Vesta,

who

carriedoff

her

priestto the halls of Jupiter mmediatelybefore his murder:his assassinsstabbed

only

his

phantom.56

The

phenomenon

of

such

doubling

as a

form of bifurcation

s

a

trope, Doniger

argues,

which

seeks to

protect

and

preserve

what is most

highly

valued

while

at

the same time

"maintaining

appearances."

She

emphasizes,

however,

that

the

splitting

which

seeks

to

obviate

the

problems

of

violence,

defilement,

guilt,

or

shame

by projecting

them

onto

a

shadowy

substitute

nevitably

produces

a

new,

destabilizing dynamic

that can

run

counterto

the

very

values it

seeks

to enshrine.

lines

25,

1);

and

ibid.,

22,

for the

devil's

acknowledgement

(ed.

Mtihlenberg,

66-67).

Reinhard

M.

Htibner

(Die

Einheit des Leibes

Christi

bei

Gregor

von

Nyssa

[Leiden:

Brill,

1974]

95-167)

similarly

suggests

that the interaction

of the "worm and

the

fish"

signifies

a

union of

opposed

forces

in the

reintegration

of

a

former

fullness;

compare

Alden

A.

Mosshammer,

"Non-Being

and

Evil in

Gregory

of

Nyssa,"

Vigiliae

Christianae

44

(1990)

136-67.

53Athanasius,

C.

Ar.

3.29:

"The

scope

and character of

Scripture

is this: it contains a

double

account

(8tnr?i

6nayy•Feia)

of the

Savior,

i.e.,

that he was

ever

God,

the

Son,

being

the

Father's

'Word'

(John 1:1),

and 'Radiance'

(Heb 1:3),

and 'Wisdom'

(1

Cor

1:24),

and that

afterwardshe

took flesh from the

Virgin

Theotokos

and was made man"

(PG

26:383,

lines

8-14);

and

Gregory

Nazianzus,

Or. 29.18:

"You must

ascribe the

more exalted

expressions

[i.e.,

of

Scripture]

to

the

deity,

and the lowlier ones to the

compound

of him who because of

you

'was

emptied'

(Phil

2:7),

and became

man";

ed. P.

Gallay,

Discours

27-31, 216,

lines

21-24.

54WendyDoniger, Splitting

the

Difference:

Gender

and

Myth

in Ancient

Greece and

India

(Chicago: University

of

Chicago

Press,

1999).

55Ibid.,

8-42.

56Ibid.,37-38,

58,

111.



NICHOLAS P.

CONSTAS

159

Thus,

the

"real"Helen is redeemed

from

the

vicissitudes of

history

only

at the

cost

of

a fundamental oss of

identity,

which

Doniger interprets

n a later

stage

of

her

inquiry

as

a

form

of

psychological fragmentation

and

schizophrenia:

abuse

generates

multiple

personalities.57

Although

Doniger

does

not

consider Christian

sources

in

her

analysis,

it seems

clear

that

the

retellings

of Christ's

passion

in

patristic

literature

closely parallel

the

retellings

of Homer's

Iliad mentioned above.

These

revisionist

tendencies,

moreover,

are

closely

intertwined

in

the

Homily

on the

Passion

and the

Cross,

which

is

engaged

in a

complex

transformation

f both Homer and the

Gospels."58

Accordingly,

he desire to redeemHelen of

Troy

from

the

fate

to

which the

inspired

poet consigned hercorresponds o the effortsof patristicexegetes to eliminatethe

"shame

and

folly"

of

the crucified savior.

Like the

mythic

figures

described

in

Doniger's

work,

Christ is both

subject

to

suffering

and

transcends all

suffering;

or,

his

sufferings

are but

a

ruse to

deceive the devil

who,

like the

simpleminded

Paris,

falls victim to

a

conspiracy

of

signs.

Also outside

of

Doniger's survey,

but even

closer to our

patristic

sources,

is

the

"passion

narrative" f the

god

Dionysus,

who

escaped suffering by practicing

his own

divine

deception.

When the

chorus

suggests

that

Pentheus

had "bound

his

hands

with

coils

and

chains,"

the

god

declares

that

"it

was

then

that

I

scorned

him;

thinking

thathe fettered me he neither touched nor

grasped

me,

but fed on

fantasy."59

or

Celsus,

the

Greek

philosopher

cited

at the

beginning

of this

essay,

Christ hould

have

likewise demonstrated

is

divinity

by

being transported

o

heaven

at

the

time of

his arrest

or,

more

dramatically,

rom

the

summit of the

cross.6

This

was

precisely

the

path

taken

by

various Gnostic

groups

who

"solved"

the

problem

of the

passion

by denying

it

altogether.

Contrary

o

appearances,

Christ

did not

suffer

at all:

in his

place

on the cross was

a double

(Judas,

or Simon of

Cyrene,

due to

a

mix-up by

the Roman

bureaucracy),

while the "real"

Christ

stood

in

the

distance,laughing.61

In addition

to these

suggestive psychological

interpretations,

he

interpretive

practice

of

"splitting

the

difference,"

to use

Doniger's phrase,

provided

orthodox

57Ibid.,

79-87.

58Compare

n.

34,

above,

and see

Mosshammer,

"Nyssa

and

Christian

Hellenism,"

who

deals

with

Nyssa's

interpretation

of

the

Homeric

myth

of Circe

(Odyssey

8).

59Euripides,

Bacchae

615-17;

trans. Moses

Hadas and John

McLean,

The

Plays

of

Euripides

(New

York:

Dial,

1936).

60Cited

n

Origen,

Cels. 2.68: "But

if he

really

was so

great

he

ought,

in

order

to

display

his

divinity,

to have

disappearedsuddenly

from the cross

(d6nr

oi

cm6Xoog7;F60

6;

avilS

yeviO0at)";

ed.

Borret, 444;

trans.

Chadwick,

118. See

also

n.

1,

above.

61See,

or

example,

Elaine

Pagels,

"Gnostic and Orthodox

Views of Christ's Passion:

Paradigms

for the Christian

Response

to

Persecution?,"

in

Rediscovery of

Gnosticism

(Leiden:

Brill,

1980)

262-88;

Pagel's

emphasis

on

persecution

bears

comparison

with

Doniger's

focus on

dissociation

(and

narrative

doubling)

as

a

response

to

abuse and trauma.



160

HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

writers

with

a

popular,

apologetic,

and dramatic

response

to

the

christology

of

Arianism,62

he

arguments

of

which were

particularly ompelling

in the

context

of

the Passion

Narrative.63

n

this

way,

the

suffering

and

death

of

Christ,

which had

been

culturally

and

theologically problematic,

were rearticulatedas a

voluntary

display

of weakness

designed

to deceive and

ultimately

defeat

the

devil,

who

pays dearly

for

adopting

the

"low"

christology

of the Arians.

It

was thus not

by

chance that

excerpts

from the

Homily

on the

Passion and the Cross circulated n

anti-Arian

christological

lorilegia,

some

of

them

interpolated

so as

to

indict

the

Arians

by

name.64

imilarly,

an anti-Arian

ermon

by

the

Cappadocian heologian

Amphilochius

of Iconium

(d.

after

394),

On

the

Words,

"Father,

fpossible,

let

this

cup pass from me," is devoted entirely to the theme of the fishhook, which the

preacher

uses to

overturn

he

Arian

reading

of Matt

26:39.65

n

all

of

these

texts,

62Drobner

Die

drei

Tage,

89)

notes that

"im

4. Jh. hat

das

Motiv der

Uberlistung

des Teufels

jedoch

zusatzlich

eine

spezielle

dogmatische

Bedeutung

fur

die

arianische

Theologie

und

deren

Abwehr."

On the dramaticand theatrical

associations,

see

Judit

Kecskemeti,

"Doctrineet dramedans

la

pr6dication grecque,"

Euphrosyne

21

(1993)

29-67,

who

argues

that

Amphilochius

of Iconium

and

Severian of

Gabala introduced the form

of

the dramatic

homily,

which

distinguishes

between

the

suffering humanity

and the

impassible divinity,

precisely

as a

polemic against

the Arians

and

Apollinarians.

63Gregory

f

Nyssa,

Eun.

3.3.31:

"It

is clear that the

reason

why

Eunomius sets

the Fatherabove

the

Son

and exalts him with

supreme

honor

is this: that

the shame

of

the cross is not

seen

in the

Father";

ed. W.

Jaeger,

Contra

Eunomium ibri

(2

vols.;

GNO

1-2;

Leiden:

Brill,

1960)

2:118-19,

lines

25-28,

1-4.

Eunomius,

Apology

for

the

Apology:

"The

deity

of the Son

suffers,

while that

of

the

Father

s

preserved

in

absolute

apatheia.

Therefore,

the naturethat is characterized

by

apatheia

is

essentially

different from the nature

hat

admits

suffering"

(apud

Gregory

of

Nyssa,

Eun.

3.4.5;

ed.

Jaeger,

2:135,

lines

15-19);

and

idem,

"The Father's natureremained

n

pure

apatheia

and

could

not

admit

of

suffering,

while

the

Son,

by

reason

of

the

divergence

of his

nature

by

way

of

humiliation,

was

not

incapable

of

experiencing

the

flesh and

death,

proof,

that

is,

of the Son's otherness in

nature

from the Father"

(apud Gregory

of

Nyssa,

Eun.

3.3.38;

ed.

Jaeger,

2:120-21,

lines

29,

1-5).

64Ps.-Athanasius,Homily on thePassion and theCross (interpolated ragment):"When he Lord

was

hanging upon

the cross

(for

his was

the

body

in which was

the

Word),

the sun

was

darkened

and

'many

bodies of the saints who had fallen

asleep

arose'

(Matt 27:52),

yet

no one has ever

dared

(,oXgyt~o

,

as

now

do

the

Arians,

to doubt that the Word

was

made flesh"

(PG

28:249

=

PG 28:

233a,

lines

10-13;

and

229a,

lines

8-12).

65"There

re

those who

say

that

Christwas afraidand acted

cowardly

in

the face

of

death,

causing

the

heretics to ridicule

and

mock

the

passion.

.

.

.

Now Eunomius

rejoices

and

Arius

is

gladdened,

having

seized

upon

this text as

a

pretext

for their

blasphemy";

ed.

C.

Datema,

Amphilochii

Iconiensis

Opera

(Turnhout:

Brepols,

1978)

139,

lines

12-13; 140,

lines 34-35. The

fishhook

(i"yatorGpov)

appears

no less

than five

times

in this

sermon

(lines

243, 244, 246,

249,

251);

compare

id.,

Or.

7.5;

ed.

Datema,

lines 167-71. See also

Ps.-Chrysostom,

In

illud,

Pater si

possibile

est

(assigned

by

its lemma to

Holy Friday): "Many,

failing

to

grasp

the aim of

wisdom,

and

overlooking

the

treasure

hidden within the literal

meaning,

ascribe fear

and

cowardice to Christ

[i.e.,

in

the

garden

of

Gethsemane]

... but

let

not

Eunomius,

that

giant

of

blasphemy,

be

exalted,

for the heretics at-

tack

us

saying:

'Do

you

see his

fear

and cowardice?

Do

you

see

how

he

prays

to the

Father?'And

with

this,

Eunomius

rejoices,

and

Arius

is filled with

glee

.

.

. but

it

was not as

you

suppose, O

Arius,

for

those

words were but

bait for

the

devil,

and

like

a

wise fisherman he

says:

'I

baited him



NICHOLAS

P.

CONSTAS 161

the

Arian

inability

(or

refusal)

to

recognize

the

divinity

of the

incarnateWord

is

aligned

with

the demonic

failure to

perceive

the

glimmering

fishhook concealed

by

the

suffering

of

Jesus

of

Nazareth.

Even more

to

the

point

is

Gregory

of

Nyssa's

Catechetical

Discourse,

which

should also

be

situated

n an

anti-Ariancontext.

Gregory

mentions

the Arians in

chapters

38 and

39;

and

n

the sections

dealing

with

the

fishhook,

Gregory

addresses

himself to those who

"ridiculeand

mock

the

incarnation." n a

classic anti-Arian

move

inherited

from

his

brother,

Basil of

Caesarea

(who

derived

it

in

turn from

Origen), Gregory

argues

for the

unity

of the

divine attributes

n the

incarnation.

These attributesnclude

goodness, power, ustice,

and

wisdom;

and,

as

noted

above,

Gregorysees "wisdom"enacted nthe clevernessof the incarnateSophiadeceiving

the

devil with the bait of

her

trembling

lesh.

In this

way,

both the

suffering

of Christ

and the divine status of Wisdom were

reclaimed from their

Arian

detractors,

and

not

only

reclaimed,

but

brought

ogether

n a

paradoxicalunity.

Through

a

poetics

of

disguise

and

displacement,

the

suffering

of Christ was

carefully positioned

between two

universes,

two

temporalities,

wo modes of

signification, vacillating

between

letter and

spirit,

surface and

depth.66

And if the

surface

revealed suffer-

ing

and

shame,

it

nevertheless

concealed

a

"secret

and

hidden

wisdom;

a wisdom

which

none

of the

rulers

of

this

age

understood;

or if

they

had

known,

they

would

not have

crucified

the Lord of

glory"

(1

Cor

2:7-8).

For

Gregory

of

Nyssa,

the

incarnation

was

precisely

(and

paradoxically)

an

act

of

concealment;

and

concealment,

ogether

with the

correlativenotion

of

deception,

characterizes

or him

the entireorder

of

redemption.

The sources for

such a doctrine

were found

partly

n

the

kenosis

hymn

of Phil

2:6-11,

in

which the

deity

abandons

its divine

"form" n order

to

be

reconfigured

n the

"likeness"

of a human

being.67

(,eXvd~aOaat)

with cowardice.

For

if

the devil deceived

(heFXvd6aaro)

dam

in the

beginning,

how

much more shouldI use

deception

forthesalvationof all?With

cunning

wordshe deceived

(iitnd6rrle)

Adam,

and now with divine

words the

cunning

one

himself shall be

deceived

(dncarln9ierat).

For

if a

fisherman,

having

cast

his hook into

the

sea,

does

not let it

out,

and

then

reel

it

in,

making

the

worm

appear

to

retreat,

the

fish will

not be attracted

to

it,

and thus I concealed

(xKKKpaJsCtitvov)

the fishhook

of

my

divinity

with the worm

of

my

body, casting

both into the

sea of the

world'"

(PG

61:751-53).

66Hereone

may profitably

consult the rich literature

in

Homeric studies on

this theme.

See,

for

example,

Sheila

Murnaghan,

Disguise

and

Recognition

in

the

Odyssey

(Princeton:

Princeton

University

Press,

1987);

Stewart

Douglas,

The

Disguised

Guest:

Rank,

Role,

and

Identity

in

the

Odyssey (Lewisburg,

Pa.:

Bucknell

University

Press,

1976);

andAnn

Bergren,

"Odyssean Temporal-

ity: Many

(Re)turns,"

n

Approaches

to

Homer

(ed.

Carl Rubino

and

Cynthia

Shelmerdine;

Austin:

University

of Texas

Press,

1983)

38-73.

67Phil

2:6-11:

"Though

he was

in the

form

(Lopoi)

of

God,

he

did not

count

equality

with

God

a

thing

to be

grasped,

but

emptied

himself

(Fambyv~c*vooev),

taking

the

form

(Qoppii)

of a

servant,

being

born

in the likeness

(Ev

6jtotc*taTt)

of

human

beings.

And

being

found

in human

form

(X'i~art)

he humbled

himself and became

obedient

unto

death,

even

death on

a

cross." For

a

study

of

this

verse

with

emphasis

on the

notions of

concealment

and

deception,

see

Gerald

Bostock,



162

HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

This

was

not,

of

course,

knavish

deception,

or mere

sport

and

costumery.

Rather,

the

divine dramawas

staged

in an

earthly

theaterof

operations

as a climactic act

of

war-a

fight

to

the

deathbetween cosmic

powers,

in

which

deception

and

conceal-

ment were forms of

camouflage necessary

to elude

and

outwit the

enemy.68

As these ideas

developed,

the

formulationof

Phil 2:7

("He

emptied

[KF?vo0eev]

himself

and

took

the

form

of a

servant")

was

merged

with a

phrase

rom

the

Song

of

Songs

("Thy

name

is

myrrh

poured

out

[•cicEvo0E'v],"

1:3).

For

Gregory

of

Nyssa,

the

"pouring

out

of

the divine

name" ndicates

that

God

cannotbe contained

within

the

brittle flask

of

human

discourse,

and

can

only

enter

such

discourse

through

a

process

of

dissemblance and

misrepresentation.69

Lack

of

resemblance,

however,

did not imply a lack of presence,because the self-emptyingof God producedan

emptiness

of

inexhaustible

possibility.

In

Origen's

commentary

on this

verse,

which

Gregory

was

familiar

with,

the Alexandrian

exegete

noted

that "Unless

God

had

been

'poured

out,'

and 'took the

form of

a

servant'

(Phil

2:7),

no one

would

have

been

able

to

grasp

the fullness

of

deity."70

lsewhere

Origen

states,

Thatwhichcame ntothis

ife

emptied

tself

_'icvoaev

iav'r6,

compare

hil

2:7),

so that

hrough

ts

emptiness

To

Kcevth•j'art)

he

world

would

be filled

(nXiripo6ei).

And

that

very

emptiness

is Wisdom

(abrz6

hKElvo

TO'

K•Cvo0•a

oootia

~v),

ecause

he

"foolishness f God

s

wiser han

men"

1

Cor

1:25),

eventhough heybe thewisestof the "rulers f thisage" 1 Cor

2:8).71'

This

very emptiness, Origen

says,

is

Wisdom:

a

place

of

passage

and not

of

circumscription,

place

of

displacement

and

exchange;

a

thresholdwhich

beckons

the natural

order

toward

mystery,

the

logical

order toward

equivocation,

and the

visible order

toward

dissemblance and the subversion of

aspect.72

The

notion of

"Origen's

Exegesis

of

the Kenosis

Hymn

(Philippians

2.5-11),"

in

Origeniana

Sexta:

Origene

et

la

Bible

(ed.

Gilles Dorival

and

Alain Le

Boulluec;

Leuven: Leuven

University

Press,

1995)

531-47.

See also Raoul Mortley,From Word o Silence II: TheWayof Negation, Christianand Greek(Bonn:

Hanstein,

1986)

38-40,

for

a

discussion of Clement's

view

of

language

as

concealment.

68Here ne

is reminded

of Churchill's remark:

"In

wartime,

truth is

so

precious

that she should

always

be

attended

by

a

bodyguard

of

lies";

see also n.

30,

above.

69Comm.

Song,

Homily

1;

ed. H.

Langerbeck,

36-37. Note that

modem

commentators

generally

read the

Commentary

on

the

Song of

Songs

as work of

"mysticism,"

failing

to

recognize

that it is

a

sustained

refutation of Eunomianism

(evidenced

in

Gregory's exegesis

of

Song

1:3);

compare

Homilies

3

(ed.

Langerbeck,

86-87);

5

(157-58);

6

(181-83);

11

(336-37);

and 12

(356-58).

70Comm.

ong

1.4,

ed. W.A.

Baehrens,

Origens

Werke,

vol.

8

(GCS

33;

Leipzig:

Hinrichs,

1925)

102.

Compare

Gregory

of

Nyssa,

Eun.

3.3.67:

"The

divinity

is

'emptied

out'

(iKvoi3zat),

so that

it

can

be contained

(Xoprril)

by

human

nature";

ed.

Jaeger,

131,

lines

19-20.

71Hom.

Jer.

8.8;

ed. P.

Nautin,

Homelies

sur

Jjrdmie,

vol.

1

(SC

232;

Paris:

Cerf,

1976)

372,

lines

1-5;

for

an

English

translation,

see John Clark

Smith,

Origen:

Homiles

on

Jeremiah;

Homily

on 1

Kings

28

(FC

97;

Washington,

D.C.: Catholic

University

of

America

Press,

1998)

74-84.

720n

Origen's

doctrine of

divine

deception,

see Henri de

Lubac,

"'Tu m'as

tromp6, Seigneur.'

Le commentaire

d'Origene

sur

J6r6mie

20,7,"

in

Recherches

dans la

Foi

(Paris:

Beauchesne,

1979)

9-78;

A. M.

Castagno,

"L'utilithdell'

&andrn,"

n

Origene predicatore

e il suo

pubblico

(Milan:

F.



NICHOLAS P.

CONSTAS

163

"divine

deception"

s thus

a central

corollary

of

the Word's

encryption

n

the

flesh,

the

veiling

of

the

unspeakable

Name

in

the

deceptive

utterances

of

language.

Despite

these

sonorous

resonances

with

the

mystical

silence

of

apophatic

the-

ology,

however,

the

magnificent

mposture

of

the incarnate

Word

is

not

merely

a

symptom

of

the

incapacity

of

language

to

represent

hat

which

is

beyond

language,

true

as that

may

be.

Instead,

the

feints

and falls enacted

by

the incarnate

deity

constitute

the

intentional

manipulation

of

human

signs,

the

seductive

scheme

of

eternal

poetic

justice.73

As a

conspiracy

of

signs,

divine

deception

entails

the

loss

of

fixed

referential

principles, collapsing

the world

into a

symbolic,

ludic

universe

which

is

perhaps

best

interpreted

n terms of

play,

challenges,

duels,

and

the strategyof appearances.It is a universe that can no longer be interpreted n

terms

of dominant

tructures

r stable

binaryoppositions,

but

rather

hrough

seduc-

tive

reversibility.

At the

same

time,

the

subject

is never

the

master of

his master

plan,

but

must

submit to the

rules of

a

game

that

go

beyond

it.

A ritual

dramaturgy

beyond

the

law,

seduction is both

game

and

fate,

and as such

pushes

both Christ

and Satan

to

their

inevitable

end.

In a

strategy

of

seduction,

one

is drawn to

the

other's

areaof

weakness. To

seduce

is

to

appear

weak. To

seduce

is

to

render

weak.

We

seduce

with

our

weakness,

never

with

signs

of

strength

or

power.

In seduction

we enact

that

weakness,

and this is

what

gives

seduction

its

strength.

We seduce

with our

death,

with our

vulnerability,

andwith the void thathaunts us. The worm

and

the

fish are

involved

in a

complex

exchange,

a

dizzying

spiral

of

responses

and

counter-responses

n a

game

that

never ends:

an endless

game

that can

only

end

in death. Or

so

it would

seem.

When

seen in

the seductive

light

of

fourth-century patristic

exegesis,

the

suffering

of Jesus

was shown to

have

both concealed

and

revealed the

"wisdom

and

power

of God."

And

if,

in his

suffering

and

death,

Jesus

became

a dehumanized

nobody,

t was in

the rich sense

of the

image

of the

emptied

flask,

which

-correctly

grasped--signifies not nonbeing,but rathercreativity,life, and well-being in the

midst of

struggle.

It

marks the

place

where

the

suffering

Jesus rebounds

against

failure,

forever

resilient even

when

dangling

like a bruised

worm

in the

jaws

of

death.

It

is the

place

where

every story

begins,

the

place

where

every

story

ends,

rich

with the

possibility

of

another

beginning.

Angeli,

1987)

226-32;

J. W.

Trigg,

"Divine

Deception

and the Truthfulness

of

Scripture,"

n

Origen

of

Alexandria:

His

Worldand

Legacy

(ed.

C.

Kannengiesser

and

W. L.

Petersen;

Notre

Dame,

Ind.:

NotreDame

University

Press,

1988)

147-64;

andJohn

McGuckin,

"The

Changing

Formsof

Jesus,"

in

Origeniana

Quarta

(ed.

Lothar

Lies;

Innsbruck:

Tyrolia

Verlag,

1987)

215-22.

I

am

thankful to

David Satran

for

these

references.

73This

oint

is

argued

by Trigg,

"Divine

Deception,"

152-54,

who

corrects the earlier

assessment

by

Crouzel.

See

also

J.

J. M.

Roberts,

"Does

God Lie?

Divine Deceit as a

Theological

Problem

in

Israelite

Prophetic

Literature,"

Vetus

Testamentum

40

(1986)

211-20.

Τhe Last Temptation of Satan

Documents

Transcript of Τhe Last Temptation of Satan