Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:35:10.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Politics of Paradise: Augustine's Exegesis of Genesis 1–3 Versus that of John Chrysostom*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Elaine Pagels
Elaine Pagels
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Is a human being capable of self-government? Christians who defied the Roman government that hounded them as criminals emphatically answered yes. Early Christian spokesmen, like Jews before them and the American colonists long after, claimed to find in the biblical creation account divine sanction for declaring their independence from governments they considered corrupt and arbitrary. Unlike its Babylonian counterpart, the Hebrew creation account of Genesis 1 indicates that God gave the power of earthly rule to adam—not to the king or emperor, but simply to “mankind” (and some even thought this might include women). Most Christian apologists from the first through the fourth centuries would have agreed with Gregory of Nyssa who, following the lead of rabbinic tradition, explains that after God created the world “as a royal dwelling place for the future king” he made humanity “as a being fit to exercise royal rule” by making it “the living image of the universal King.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 78 , Issue 1-2 , April 1985 , pp. 67 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Vita Adae et Evae 22.1–2; Jubilees 2.14; see Jervell, Jacob, Imago Dei: Gen. l,26f. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis, und in den paulinischen Briefen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960) 40–41.Google Scholar

2 De hom. op. 2.1.

3 Ibid., 4.1. The opposite theme—that of the emperor as sole representative of God's sovereignty on earth, a theme often supported with reference to Rom 13:1—does emerge however, especially among theologians of the Byzantine era, as de Ste. Croix, G. E. M. notes: The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World from the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981) 397–400.Google Scholar

4 De hom. op. 4.1.

5 Ibid., 16.11.

6 Both themes, certainly, appear in the works of patristic theologians; for an overview, see Spitz, Lewis, “Man on this Isthmus,” in Meyer, Carl S., ed., Luther for an Ecumenical Age: Essays in Commemoration of the 450th Anniversary of the Reformation (St. Louis: Concordia, 1967) 23–66.Google Scholar

7 For citations and discussion, see below 78–89.

8 Chrysostom Hom, ad pop. Ant. 7.3.

9 De hom. op. 16.17.

10 Hom. ad pop. Ant. 7.3.

11 Hom. in I Cor. 34.7.

12 Hom. in Eph. 22.9; cf. Hom. in I Cor. 40.6

13 Hom. in I Cor. 26.2; cf. Hom. in Eph. 20.33; see n. 13.

14 Hom. in I Cor. 26.2 stresses Eve's original equality with Adam. Yet, interpreting 1 Cor 11:9, Chrysostom goes on to enumerate four reasons for man's natural superiority to woman (cf. Hom. in I Cor. 26.4–5). Chrysostom expresses a similarly ambivalent attitude in other passages, often related to the passage he is interpreting. Hom. in I Cor. 34 and Hom. in Eph. 20, e.g., suggest that woman, essentially man's equal, was subordinated to him for practical purposes of government, to maintain social order. Commenting on 1 Tim 2:11–15, on the other hand, Chrysostom denounces the whole female sex for its intrinsic inferiority (Hom. in I Tim. 9, passim). In Hom. in I Cor. 34, however, Chrysostom declares that God designed a balance of power between man and woman to insure their continuing interdependence (Hom. in I Cor. 34.7). See the incisive discussion by Clark, Elizabeth A. in Jerome, Chrysostom and Friends: Essays and Translations (Studies in Women and Religion 2; New York: Mellen, 1979)Google Scholar esp. “The Virginal Politeia and Plato's Republic,” 1–34.

15 Hom. in II Cor. 17.3.

16 Hom. ad pop. Ant. 6.1–2.

17 Hom. in I Cor. 12.9.

18 Ibid., 12.10.

19 Hom. in I Thess. 5.7.

20 Hom. in I Cor. 12.10.

21 Hom. ad pop. Ant. 6.2.

22 Cf., e.g., Tertullian Apol. 4.39; Justin I Apol. 12.42.

23 De sacerdot. 2.3.

24 Emphasis added.

25 Hom. in Eph. 11.15–16. Emphasis added.

26 Ibid., 6.7.

27 De sacerdot 3.15.

28 Hom. in Eph. 11.15–16.

29 I am grateful to Peter Brown for reminding me of this theme in Wilken's, Robert L. recent book, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983) 29–33.Google Scholar

30 Conf. 2.2. Translations used here are those of William Watts (1631) in St. Augustine's Confessions (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977) 69.Google Scholar In some places I have chosen to retranslate phrases for clarity or agreement with contemporary idiom (i.e., in Conf. 2.3, where Watts translated calcabat as “trod me down,” I translate “tracked me down”; in Conf. 6.12, where Watts translates consuetudo as “custom,” I prefer “habit”).

31 Ibid., 2.3.

32 Ibid., 6.12.

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid., 6.11. For discussion of the relationships of Augustine's theology with Chrysostom, see Beatrice, Pier Franco, Tradux peccati: Alle fonti della dottrina agostiniana del peccato originale (Studia Patristica Mediolanensia 8; Milan: Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 1978)Google Scholar chap. 5: “Crisostomo, Agostino e i pelagiani.”

35 Conf. 2.7.

36 Ibid., 2.6.

37 Ibid., 7.3.

38 Ibid. Emphasis added.

39 Ibid., 8.5.

40 Ibid., 8.10.

41 Ibid. Emphasis added.

42 Cranz, F. Edward, “The Development of Augustine's Ideas on Society before the Donatist Controversy,” HTR 47 (1954) 254–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar I am grateful to Elizabeth Clark, as well as to Peter Brown, for mentioning this point.

43 De civ. Dei 14.15. The translation cited generally follows that of Levine, Philip in Augustine, St., The City of God Against the Pagans (LCL, 1966).Google Scholar

44 Ibid., 13.21: Lignum scientiae boni et mail proprium voluntatis arbitrium. According to the analysis of Harl, M. (“Adam et les deux Arbres du Paradis [Gen. II-III] chez Philon d'Alexandrie,” RechSR 50 [1962] 321–87)Google Scholar, Philo, too, saw human autonomy which exercises choice between good and evil as the alternative—and opposite—of true piety. If so, Philo might agree with Augustine that the result of the Fall is “personal control over one's own will.” Unlike Augustine, however, Philo regards the daily life of a philosophically inclined person as a constant struggle of ethical decision and action (374), and assumes that humanity has a capacity to choose the good (377).

45 De civ. Dei 13.13. Emphasis added.

46 Ibid., 14.15.

47 Ibid., 14.12.

48 Ibid., 14.13.

49 Ibid., 14.15.

50 Conf. 7.3.

51 Hom. in 1 Cor. 17.4.

52 De civ. Dei. 13.3. Emphasis added.

53 Chrysostom Hom. in Rom. 10.1; for discussion of Augustine's exegesis, see Gross, Julius, Entstehungsgeschichte des Erbsündendogmas von der Bibel bis Augustinus (4 vols.; Munich: Reinhardt, 1960) 1.Google Scholar 304–5; Beatrice, Tradux Peccati, 139–41.

54 De civ. Dei 13.14.

55 Ibid.

56 Ibid.

57 Cf. Kamlah, Wilhelm, Christentum und Geschichtlichkeit: Untersuchungen zur Entstehung des Christentums und zu Augustins “Bürgerschaft Gottes” (2d ed; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1951) 322Google Scholar: “Wo Augustin über die politische Herrschaft spricht, verweist er immer sogleich auf diese ursprüngliche Herrschafts- und Schöpfungsordnung und auf die Scheinherrschaft derer, die in der Knechtschaft der libido dominandi leben.”

58 De civ. Dei. 2.36.

59 Ibid., 14.15.

60 Ibid., 14.3.

61 Ibid., 14.15.

62 Ibid., 13.13.

63 Ibid., 13.24.

64 De pecc. merit, et rem. 2.2; cf. De civ. Dei. 14.17.

65 Ibid., 14.19–20.

66 Ibid. 14.16.

67 De pecc. merit, et rem. 2.22.

68 De civ. Dei 14.26.

69 Ibid., 14.17.

70 Conf. 8.5.

71 De civ. Dei 14.20. Origen, too, associated intercourse with impurity, although, as Henri Crouzel points out, “the impurity inherent in the exercise of sexuality is no more than an intensification of an even more profound uncleanness, that of the bodily condition” (“Marriage and Virginity: Has Christianity Devalued Marriage?” in idem, Mariage et divorce, celibat et charactère sacerdotaux dans l'église ancienne: Études diverses [Torino: Bottega d'Erasmo, 1982] 57).Google Scholar

72 De civ. Dei 14.19.

73 Ibid., 14.9. For discussion, see Miles, Margaret Ruth, Augustine on the Body (AARDS 31; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979) esp. 1–98.Google Scholar

74 De civ. Dei 15.5.

75 Ibid., 15.16; 19.13.

76 Ibid., 14.11.

77 See the excellent discussion by Børrensen, Kari Elizabeth, Subordination and Equivalence: The Nature and Role of Women in Augustine and Thomas Aquinas (trans. Talbot, Charles H.; Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1981) 15–34.Google Scholar

78 De civ. Dei 19.15.

79 Ibid.

80 Ibid., 15.1.

81 Ibid., 19.15.

82 Ibid., 19.12.

83 I am grateful to Professor Gilles Quispel for referring me to these works: Berkhof, Henrik, Kirche und Kaiser: Eine Untersuchung der Entstehung der byzantinischen und der theokratisichen Stattsauffassung im vierten Jahrhundert (trans. Locher, Gottfried W.; Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1947)Google Scholar; Kamlah, Wilhelm, Christentum und Geschichtlichkeit (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1951).Google Scholar

84 De civ. Dei 19.12.

85 Ibid.

86 For discussion of the image and its history, see MacMullen, R., “The Roman Concept Robber-Pretender,” Revue Internationale des Droits de l'Antiquité, series 3, 10 (1965) 221–25.Google Scholar

87 Justin Martyr Apol. 1.12.

88 Marcus Aurelius Meditations 10.10.

89 De civ. Dei 4.4.

90 As R. A. Markus rightly notes; see his discussion in Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St. Augustine (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970) 84–86.Google Scholar

91 Adv. haer. 55.24.2.

92 Apol. 1.65.

93 De civ. Dei 19.16.

94 See Brown, P. R. L., “Saint Augustine's Attitude to Religious Coercion,” JRS 54 (1964) 107–16.Google Scholar For a fascinating account of the incorporation of this image into the Roman liturgy, see Lukken, G. M., Original Sin in the Roman Liturgy: Research into the Theology of Original Sin in the Roman Sacramentaria and the Early Baptismal Liturgy (Leiden: Brill, 1973).Google Scholar

95 We need only recall how in Conf.. 8.12 Augustine describes the instrument of his salvation as, first, the child's voice that, he believes, directed him to “take and read” the Scriptures (a Christian version of the bath kol), and then the passage in Romans (13:13) to which the “Apostle's book” fell open when he obeyed God's command mediated through that voice.

96 For a detailed discussion, see Markus, Saeculum According to Markus's reconstruction, Augustine from 390, for 10 or 15 years, “appeared to have joined the chorus of his contemporaries in their triumphant jubilation over the victory of Christianity” (31). “For a decade or more, his historical thinking was dominated by this motif” (32). Yet from 410, Augustine became “much less ready to speak of a Christian empire … he became much more reserved” (36).

97 Markus sees Augustine's theory as admirably balanced: “The Empire is not to be seen either in terms of the messianic image of the Eusebian tradition, or of the apocalyptic image, as the Antichrist of the Hippolytan tradition. The empire has become no more than an historical, empirical society with a chequered career. … It is theologically neutral” (Ibid., 559). I believe that Markus overstates his case (or, perhaps, presents his own agenda as Augustine's) when he goes farther and claims that Augustine also sees the church as “theologically neutral.”

98 See, e.g., Hans Joachim Diesner's discussion of Ambrose, in “Kirche und Staat im ausgehenden vierten Jahrhundert: Ambrosius von Mailand,” in his Kirche und Staat im Spätromischen Reich: Aufsätze zur Spätantike und zur Geschichte der Alten Kirche (Berlin: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1963) esp. 28–34.Google Scholar

99 de Ste. Croix, Class Struggle, 368.

100 Minucius Felix Octavius 37.1. Emphasis added.

101 Ibid., 38.1.

102 Tertullian Apol. 28.

103 Another favorite Christian slogan, free will, bore similar connotations. Many of Augustine's contemporaries, hearing Christians advocate free will (libero arbitrio) might associate this with those who advocate revolution, or, at least, resistance against Roman rule. See Myres, J. N. L., “Pelagius and the End of Roman Rule in Britian,” JRS 50 (1960) 21–36.Google Scholar

104 De civ. Dei 13.21.

105 Ibid., 14.15.

106 Stilicho 3.113–15. For an informative and incisive discussion of Claudian's point of view, see Cameron, Alan, Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda of the Court of Honorius (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970).Google Scholar

107 I am grateful to Peter Brown for pointing this out, and for referring me to the discussion of libertas in Tellenbach, Gerd, Church, State and Christian Society at the Time of the Investiture Contest (trans. Bennett, R. F.; Studies in Medieval History 3; Oxford: Blackwell, 1959) 14–18.Google Scholar

108 Hom. ad pop. Ant. 3.6.

109 Ibid., 6.6.

110 For a detailed and useful analysis, see van Ommeslaeghe, Florent, “Jean Chrysostome et le peuple de Constantinople,” AnBoll 99 (1981) 329–49Google Scholar: “Il est certain qu'une des raisons de l'attachement du peuple de Constantinople à son chef spirituel fut sa bonté, son amour des pauvres, de nos jours on dirait: son sens social” (348). Also see Liebeschutz, J. H. W. G., “Friends and Enemies of John Chrysostom” in Moffatt, Ann, ed., Maistor: Classical, Byzantine and Renaissance Studies for Robert Browning (Byzantina Australiensia 5; Canberra: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 1984) 85–111.Google Scholar

111 Seeck, Otto, Geschichte des Untergang der antiken Welt (6 vols. in 8; Berlin: Siemenroth & Troschel, 1897–1920) 5. 336–37.Google Scholar

112 van Ommeslaeghe, Florent, “Jean Chrysostome en conflit avec l'impératrice Eudoxie: Le dossier et les origines d'une légende,” AnBoll 97 (1979) 131–59.Google Scholar

113 Chrysostom Ep. 94.

114 Serm. 355.2, as cited in Brown, Peter, Augustine of Hippo (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965) 138.Google Scholar

115 Ibid., 225.

116 De mor. eccl. cath. 1.30.63.

117 Brown, Augustine, 235.

118 De bapt. 1.15.23–24.

119 Brown, Augustine, 358. Emphasis added.