The Solution to the Problem of 'Paul'

[MrMacSon]

might still be worth a paper in a (peer-reviewed) journal?

[Stephan Huller]

It should be noted that Celsus is actually citing the first instance of a soldier acknowledging Agamemnon as their king Odysseus's actions in Book Two. Odysseus taking Agamemnon's scepter, goes among the soldiers; whenever he sees a soldier of high rank, he asks him politely not to run away. Whenever he sees a soldier of lower rank, he gives him the same message – by hitting him with the scepter:

But whatsoever man of the people he saw, and found brawling, him would he smite with his staff; and chide with words, saying, “Fellow, sit thou still, and hearken to the words of others that are better men than thou; whereas thou art unwarlike and a weakling, neither to be counted in war nor in counsel. In no wise shall we Achaeans all be kings here. No good thing is a multitude of lords; let there be one lord, one king, to whom the son of crooked-counselling Cronos hath vouchsafed the sceptre and judgments, that he may take counsel for his people.” Thus masterfully did he range through the host, and they hasted back to the place of gathering from their ships and huts with noise, as when a wave of the loud-resounding sea thundereth on the long beach, and the deep roareth.

Celsus against notes:

Celsus goes on to say: "We must not disobey the ancient writer, who said long ago, 'Let one be king, whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed;'"

Εἶθ' ἑξῆς φησιν ὁ Κέλσος ὅτι οὐ χρὴ ἀπιστεῖν ἀνδρὶ ἀρχαίῳ, πάλαι προειπόντι τό· Εἷς βασιλεύς, ᾧ ἔδωκε Κρόνου παῖς ἀγκυλομήτεω.

and adds: "If you set aside this maxim, you will deservedly suffer for it at the hands of the king. For if all were to do the same as you, there would be nothing to prevent his being left in utter solitude and desertion, and the affairs of the earth would fall into the hands of the wildest and most lawless barbarians; and then there would no longer remain among men any of the glory of your religion or of the true wisdom." If, then, "there shall be one lord, one king," he must be, not the man "whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed," but the man to whom He gave the power, who "removeth kings and setteth up kings," and who "raiseth up the useful man in time of need upon earth." For kings are not appointed by that son of Saturn, who, according to Grecian fable, hurled his father from his throne, and sent him down to Tartarus (whatever interpretation may be given to this allegory), but by God, who governs all things, and who wisely arranges whatever belongs to the appointment of kings. We therefore do set aside the maxim contained in the line, "Whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed;" for we know that no god or father of a god ever devises anything crooked or crafty. But we are far from setting aside the notion of a providence, and of things happening directly or indirectly through the agency of providence. And the king will not "inflict deserved punishment" upon us, if we say that not the son of crafty Saturn gave him his kingdom, but He who "removeth and setteth up kings." And would that all were to follow my example in rejecting the maxim of Homer, maintaining the divine origin of the kingdom, and observing the precept to honour the king! In these circumstances the king will not "be left in utter solitude and desertion," neither will "the affairs of the world fall into the hands of the most impious and wild barbarians." For if, in the words of Celsus," they do as I do," then it is evident that even the barbarians, when they yield obedience to the word of God, will become most obedient to the law, and most humane; and every form of worship will be destroyed except the religion of Christ, which will alone prevail. And indeed it will one day triumph, as its principles take possession of the minds of men more and more every day.

The reference in Marcion's book seems to be related to another instance of the same message and the failure of Christians to acknowledge Caesar as their ruler was secured by these very same lines. As Eusebius notes regarding the persecutions at the turn of the fourth century:

The first of the martyrs of Palestine was Procopius,2617 who, before he had received the trial of imprisonment, immediately on his first appearance before the governor’s tribunal, having been ordered to sacrifice to the so-called gods, declared that he knew only one to whom it was proper to sacrifice, as he himself wills. But when he was commanded to offer libations to the four emperors, having quoted a sentence which displeased them, he was immediately beheaded. The quotation was from the poet: “The rule of many is not good; let there be one ruler and one king.”

[Blood]

Justin Martyr First Apology 26 refers to "a certain Marcion of Pontus" in the present tense. It doesn't seem like it would have been difficult for the church fathers to have known where Marcion was from, especially if the story about him coming to Rome c. 140 is true.

[Stephan Huller]

Yes but if you actually look at the references to Marcion they seem to be inserted midstream into other discussions. The second reference to Marcion in 1 Apology is especially suspicious:

Nor can the devils persuade men that there will be no conflagration for the punishment of the wicked; as they were unable to effect that Christ should be hidden after He came. But this only can they effect, that they who live irrationally, and were brought up licentiously in wicked customs, and are prejudiced in their own opinions, should kill and hate us; whom we not only do not hate, but, as is proved, pity and endeavour to lead to repentance. For we do not fear death, since it is acknowledged we must surely die; and there is nothing new, but all things continue the same in this administration of things; and if satiety overtakes those who enjoy even one year of these things, they ought to give heed to our doctrines, that they may live eternally free both from suffering and from want. But if they believe that there is nothing after death, but declare that those who die pass into insensibility, then they become our benefactors when they set us free from sufferings and necessities of this life, and prove themselves to be wicked, and inhuman, and bigoted. For they kill us with no intention of delivering us, but cut us off that we may be deprived of life and pleasure (ἀλλ' ὡς ἀποστεροῦντες ζωῆς καὶ ἡδονῆς φονεύουσι).

And Marcion of Pontus (Καὶ Μαρκίωνα δὲ τὸν ἀπὸ Πόντου), as we said before (ὡς προέφημεν), is put forward by foul demons (προεβάλλοντο οἱ φαῦλοι δαίμονες) is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son. And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us, though they have no proof of what they say, but are carried away irrationally as lambs by a wolf, and become the prey of atheistical doctrines, and of devils.

For they who are called devils attempt nothing else than to seduce men from God who made them, and from Christ His first-begotten; and those who are unable to raise themselves above the earth they have riveted, and do now rivet, to things earthly, and to the works of their own hands; but those who devote themselves to the contemplation of things divine, they secretly beat back; and if they have not a wise sober-mindedness, and a pure and passionless life, they drive them into godlessness.

If you actually look at the English translations of Justin they actually attempt to smooth over some of the awkwardness of the original Greek (viz. "And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men"). The way Marcion is inserted here is sudden and without finesse. It is clearly a secondary insertion.

The first insertion can be similarly argued albeit it is not as cut and dry owing to the presence of two heretics in the passage - Marcion and Simon. Moreover, Justin's arguments have been edited in more than one way. Note the section as a whole for a moment:

And that this may now become evident to you (Ἵνα δὲ ἤδη καὶ τοῦτο φανερὸν ὑμῖν γένηται) that whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ (ὅτι ὁπόσα λέγομεν μαθόντες παρὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ), and by the prophets who preceded Him (καὶ τῶν προελ θόντων αὐτοῦ προφητῶν), are alone true (μόνα ἀληθῆ ἐστι), and are older than all the writers who have existed (καὶ πρεσβύτερα πάντων γεγενημένων συγγραφέων); that we claim to be acknowledged, not because we say the same things as these writers said, but because we say true things: and that Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race: and that before He became a man among men, some, influenced by the demons before mentioned, related beforehand, through the instrumentality of the poets, those circumstances as having really happened, which, having fictitiously devised, they narrated, in the same manner as they have caused to be fabricated the scandalous reports against us of infamous and impious actions, of which there is neither witness nor proof--we shall bring forward the following proof.

In the first place, because, though we say things similar to what the Greeks say, we only are hated on account of the name of Christ, and though we do no wrong, are put to death as sinners; other men in other places worshipping trees and rivers, and mice and cats and crocodiles, and many irrational animals. Nor are the same animals esteemed by all; but in one place one is worshipped, and another in another, so that all are profane in the judgment of one another, on account of their not worshipping the same objects. And this is the sole accusation you bring against us, that we do not reverence the same gods as you do, nor offer to the dead libations and the savour of fat, and crowns for their statues, and sacrifices. For you very well know that the same animals are with some esteemed gods, with others wild beasts, and with others sacrificial victims.

And, secondly, because we--who, out of every race of men, used to worship Bacchus the son of Semele, and Apollo the son of Latona (who in their loves with men did such things as it is shameful even to mention), and Proserpine and Venus (who were maddened with love of Adonis, and whose mysteries also you celebrate), or AEsculapius, or some one or other of those who are called gods--have now, through Jesus Christ, learned to despise these, though we be threatened with death for it, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impossible God; of whom we are persuaded that never was he goaded by lust of Antiope, or such other women, or of Ganymede, nor was rescued by that hundred-handed giant whose aid was obtained through Thetis, nor was anxious on this account that her son Achilles should destroy many of the Greeks because of his concubine Briseis. Those who believe these things we pity, and those who invented them we know to be devils.

And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome:--

"Simoni Deo Sancto,"

"To Simon the holy God." And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds--the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh--we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.

But as for us, we have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do any one an injury, and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And as the ancients are said to have reared herds of oxen, or goats, or sheep, or grazing horses, so now we see you rear children only for this shameful use; and for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And any one who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods, and along with each of those whom you esteem gods there is painted a serpent, a great symbol and mystery. Indeed, the things which you do openly and with applause, as if the divine light were overturned and extinguished, these you lay to our charge; which, in truth, does no harm to us who shrink from doing any such things, but only to those who do them and bear false witness against us.

Right off the bat I am suspicious of the first sentences. It now appears as if Justin Martyr says that the things Christians say agree with only the Jewish prophets. But we know that Justin elsewhere cites Plato as sharing the knowledge of the Christian mysteries. I strongly suspect that the original opening chapter read something like:

And that this may now become evident to you (Ἵνα δὲ ἤδη καὶ τοῦτο φανερὸν ὑμῖν γένηται) that whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ (ὅτι ὁπόσα λέγομεν μαθόντες παρὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ),

and by the prophets who preceded Him (καὶ τῶν προελ θόντων αὐτοῦ προφητῶν), are alone true (μόνα ἀληθῆ ἐστι), and are older than all the writers who have existed (καὶ πρεσβύτερα πάντων γεγενημένων συγγραφέων); that we claim to be acknowledged, not because

we say the same things as these writers said,

but

because we speak the truth (ὅτι τὸ ἀληθὲς λέ γομεν): and that Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race

Remember, what often gets lost in all the discussions is that this is a supposed to be an actual letter from the head of a Christian community in Rome to the Emperor. One would expect that his argument would be 'our beliefs are exactly the same as yours' not 'we only believe in Jewish beliefs and practices, especially so close to the end of the Bar Kochba revolt.

Much the same thing can be said about the material that follows. I think Justin has been prompted to write this apology because of hostile reports. Yet this has been transformed by the editor of Justin's work into the generic idea of 'heretics giving Christians a bad name.' So my proposed emendations to the next section would be:

some, influenced by the demons before mentioned, related beforehand,

through the instrumentality of the poets, those circumstances as having really happened, which, having fictitiously devised, they narrated, in the same manner as they

have caused to be fabricated the scandalous reports against us of infamous and impious actions, of which there is neither witness nor proof

we shall bring forward the following proof. In the first place, because,

though we say things similar to what the Greeks say, we only are hated on account of the name of Christ, and though we do no wrong, are put to death as sinners

Notice that there is buried within this section the acknowledgement that 'we say the same things as your teachers' although now it is drowned out by secondary information inserted by the later editor. This section also introduces a series of 'points' (i.e. noted by 'first proof,' 'second proof,' 'third proof') which I am certain was not in the original section.

I don't believe that Justin would take this opportunity to attack paganism. Remember this is a letter to the Emperor where above all else, Justin is trying to demonstrate that Christianity is compatible with the beliefs of the Greek philosophers.

I think all that follows under this 'first proof' is authentic - because it is cited by Celsus in his treatise in a long section cited by Origen:

other men in other places worshipping trees and rivers, and mice and cats and crocodiles, and many irrational animals. Nor are the same animals esteemed by all; but in one place one is worshipped, and another in another, so that all are profane in the judgment of one another, on account of their not worshipping the same objects. And this is the sole accusation you bring against us, that we do not reverence the same gods as you do, nor offer to the dead libations and the savour of fat, and crowns for their statues, and sacrifices. For you very well know that the same animals are with some esteemed gods, with others wild beasts, and with others sacrificial victims.

The idea that Christians cannot sacrifice animals is well established in the literature.

I am also convinced that all of the 'second proof' and 'third proof' are a later addition:

And, secondly, because we--who, out of every race of men, used to worship Bacchus the son of Semele, and Apollo the son of Latona (who in their loves with men did such things as it is shameful even to mention), and Proserpine and Venus (who were maddened with love of Adonis, and whose mysteries also you celebrate), or AEsculapius, or some one or other of those who are called gods--have now, through Jesus Christ, learned to despise these, though we be threatened with death for it, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impossible God; of whom we are persuaded that never was he goaded by lust of Antiope, or such other women, or of Ganymede, nor was rescued by that hundred-handed giant whose aid was obtained through Thetis, nor was anxious on this account that her son Achilles should destroy many of the Greeks because of his concubine Briseis. Those who believe these things we pity, and those who invented them we know to be devils.

And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome:--

"Simoni Deo Sancto,"

"To Simon the holy God." And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds--the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh--we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.

I don't believe that Justin would have taken the opportunity to insult paganism in a treatise supposedly designed to offer proof that Christianity should be tolerated by the Empire (especially when we see how much Christians from later periods flattered and kissed the ass of the authorities in their treatises).

The text properly continues:

But as for us, we have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do any one an injury, and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And as the ancients are said to have reared herds of oxen, or goats, or sheep, or grazing horses, so now we see you rear children only for this shameful use; and for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And any one who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods, and along with each of those whom you esteem gods there is painted a serpent, a great symbol and mystery. Indeed, the things which you do openly and with applause, as if the divine light were overturned and extinguished, these you lay to our charge; which, in truth, does no harm to us who shrink from doing any such things, but only to those who do them and bear false witness against us.

Of course no one can be exactly or completely correct with these proposed emendations. Yet I think the general point that the existing text is not the original letter from Justin to the Emperor but has been severely tampered (it is after all extraordinarily long and then there is the question of the overlap in material with 2 Apology). Got to back to work

[Blood]

It's also curious to compare the section in Colossians with the two emphatic 'ego' appearances:

This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which have become I, Paul, a servant (ἐγὼ Παῦλος διάκονος). Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. Whereof became I, minister (ἐγὼ διάκονος) according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God in its fullness— the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. He is the one we proclaim, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ. To this end I strenuously contend with all the energy Christ so powerfully works in me.

It is so rare to find the name 'Paul' in the main body of any of the letters. It's unusual that the 'Paulos' is just inserted into one of these structures especially when what immediately follows is a reference to his lowliness. Compare the substitution of φαῦλος for a moment within the broader context:

This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which have become I, a lowly servant (ἐγὼ φαῦλος διάκονος). Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Chrestos's sufferings, for the sake of his body, which is the church. Whereof became I, minister (ἐγὼ διάκονος) according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God in its fullness— the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Chrestos in you, the hope of glory. He is the one we proclaim, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Chrestos. To this end I strenuously contend with all the energy Chrestos so powerfully works in me.

I don't know, but φαῦλος is certainly fits the context and notice that it fits the very juxtaposition of chrestos and phaulos mentioned earlier. The apostle is saying that he is a lowly, worthless wretch before chrestos filled up his soul with light and goodness. I am not claiming this is decisive evidence but I happen to find the phaulos/chrestos juxtaposition here quite interesting and appealing.

I'm interested to know if there are juxtapositions between "phalous" and "chrestos" anywhere in Philo.

[Stephan Huller]

I happen to have the Philo Index in book form http://books.google.com/books?id=OljXM0 ... &q&f=false. I have been just so busy with nonsense. I can look up all the phaulos and chrestos references at least and see if any are in close proximity.

[Stephan Huller]

I've posted all the references for phaulos and chrestos in Philo at my blog:

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2014/ ... philo.html

[Stephan Huller]

And the parable that I think works best with this 'phaulos - chrestos' dichotomy is that of the two trees which was especially important to the Marcionites. As it stands the story makes little sense when the gospel speaks of a 'good tree' and an 'evil tree' but even more so with 'good fruit' and 'evil fruit.' The existing translation was certainly used to 'prove' that the Marcionites were 'really' dualists and that the 'trees' were Christ and the Devil or Satan.

But we know from all the early Church Fathers (save for Tertullian working in Latin) that the Marcionites said that the Demiurge was 'bad' (= phaulos) rather than 'evil' (poneros). There were three gods in the Marcionite system - the Father (= merciful), the Demiurge (= just) and the Devil (= evil). If the dichotomy of the two trees was really between the Demiurge and the Father, the discussion of their 'fruit' (i.e. the two gods Chrestos and Yahweh) linguistically better fits the chrestos vs phaulos dichotomy even though I can't find a Greek witness to this reading.

But notice Jerome's statement on the early Latin translations of chrestos. But before we get there note how - as with many things Marcionite - the persistence of chrestos as a divine name was perpetuated in the earliest Latin scripture the Vetus Latina and more importantly in the liturgy of the common assemblies perpetuated throughout the ages. As Carruthers http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 3099,d.cGU notes:

Of all the items in the mixed lexical bag of Latin bequeathed to medieval Europe, “sweetness” — dulcedo, suavitas — is among the most mixed and the trickiest of concepts. It is encountered everywhere in medieval literature. That Roman snob turned Merovingian courtier, Venantius Fortunatus, writes how his poems, offered up in the wilderness like those of Orpheus, with their sweetness tame the savage woods and enrapture the feral beasts (those being the sixth-century nobles of Poitou).7 The effects of dulce carmen remained a favorite medieval trope. At the end of the Middle Ages, another Italian, Dante, writes of another band of rough courtiers—this time dead ones, penned in together at the very boundary of Pur- gatory’s mountain in the Valley of Princes. Dante has been talking to Sordello when all become silent, a crowd seated in meditation. Then one signals the rest to listen and stands with his hands clasped in a traditional prayer posture:

. . . una de l’alme surta, che l’ascoltar chiedea con mano. Ella giunse e levo ` ambo le palme, ficcando li occhi verso l’oriente, come dicesse a Dio: “D’altro non calme.” “Te lucis ante” sı ` devotamente le uscı `o di bocca a con sı ` dolci note, che fece me a me uscir di mente; e l’altre poi dolcemente e devote seguitar lei per tutto l’inno intero, avendo li occhi a le superne rote. (Purgatorio 8.8–18)8 [. . . one of the souls, (had) uprisen, who was signing with his hand to be heard. He joined and lifted both his palms, fixing his eyes on the East, as if he said to God, “For naught else do I care.”

“Te lucis ante” came from his lips so devoutly and with such sweet notes that it rapt me from myself. Then the rest joined him sweetly and devoutly through the whole hymn, keeping their eyes fixed on the supernal wheels.] The leader is unnamed, ostentatiously so, in a poem where seemingly everybody wants to be identified. The group begin the evening hymn, Telucisante terminum, with such sweet notes (“dolci note”), sung sweetly and devoutly (“dolcemente e devote”), that Dante exits his own mind (“chefecemeameuscirdimente”)along with the rapt singers, in contemplative gaze upon the circling heavens. Sweetness here is the vehicle of harmony and of ascent to the divine. In the poem this sounding sweetness comes as a stark, if welcome, contrast to the disjointed harshness and abrasiveness with which Dante is ushered into Hell:

Diverse lingue, orribili favelle, parole di dolore, accenti d’ira, voci alte e fioche, e suon di man con elle facevano un tumulto, il qual s’aggira sempre in quell’ aura sanza tempo tinta come la rena quando turba spira. (Inferno 3.25–30)

[Strange tongues, horrible outcries, words of woe, accents of anger, voices shrill and hoarse, and among these the sound of hands were making a tumult that swirls unceas- ingly in that dark air without change, like sand when a sand-devil blows.]

Indeed “sweetness” is one of God’s own names, an essential predicate. In the words of Psalm 33 (in the Gallican Psalter):“Gustate et vide tequoniam suavisest Dominus” (Taste and see that the Lord is sweet).

But sweetness is not all good, as Adam and Eve discovered. The fruits of Eden were lovely to look upon and “advescendumsuave,” and we all know what came of that. A seducer’s words are always sweet, like those of the serpent. Though the Vulgate does not cast the serpent’s words explicitly as persuasion, commentary soon identified him as a persuader. Marius Victorinus, Augustine’s good friend, does so specifically: as a former rhetoric master himself, he was in a position to appreciate a successful performance. Honorius Augustodunensis refers to him as serpens persuadens. The second great persuader in this narrative was, of course, Eve. Indeed, this story in Genesis can serve as an exemplar of the aesthetic and moral ambivalence posed by “sweetness.”9 For like the tree itself, like the sweet apple (“malum”) it bears, “sweetness” is both in bono et in malo. From the very start, “sweetness” was profoundly ambivalent and morally difficult, as is apparent in the comments of both Jerome and Augustine upon the Latin translations of the Bible that made use of such words. Yet they continued in use, notably by both Jerome and Augustine. Moreover their use is characteristic of the Latin church more than the Greek, and in the early church, perhaps especially of North Africa, a phenomenon demonstrated by Joseph Ziegler, the Old Testament editor, in a seminal1937studyofhowtheconceptwastranslatedfromtheHebrewandGreek into Latin.10 Augustine, who was acutely aware of the ambiguity of dulcedo/ suavitas, even counseling against using these words in translations of the Bible in favor of less morally troublesome words like bonitas, nonetheless called in rapture to his God,“veratuet summa suavitas”(Confessions9.1). For all its ambivalence, sweetness seems to have been a necessary term, worth risking for the sake of some greater expressive good.

What this good might be is the subject of this essay, which explores “sweetness” in three areas: as knowledge, as persuasion, as medicine. First, knowledge.

The Genesis story exploits an ancient association of taste with knowledge, evident as well in the derivation of Latin sapientia from sapiens, the present participle of the verb sapio, sapere.11 Most commentators in the Aristotelian tradition regarded taste as touch of a kind, though the two sense shaved distinct media through which they operate, flesh in the case of touch and the tongue in that of taste (the tongue is a touching instrument and experiences heat and cold, but it is moisture as saliva that develops flavor).12 Unlike the cerebral senses—vision, hearing, and smell, all of which operate out of the brain — touch and taste both connect directly to the heart, either the heart itself (Roger Bacon noted that Avicenna thought the flesh of the heart was itself sentient) or somewhere close to it. There is variation on this matter. All agreed, however, that touch and taste are vital to nutrition, hence to life itself (though Aristotle pointed out that, strictly speaking, animals can survive without taste but none can without touch, for it is touch that makes a creature sentient).

What taste distinguishes is “savors,” or “flavors,” sapores. All the senses have limits beyond which they do not operate, and these limits are expressed as the extremes of a scale of “intermediate” colors, flavors, and smells. We perceive colors and flavors (and also smells) in a similar manner, always as mixtures of the two opposite qualities, and not—notice—as singular qualities in themselves. Colors are mixtures occurring between the two limits of black and white; when we perceive different colors—even “black” and “white”—what we are perceiving are differing proportions of a mixture of black and white. What we perceive as distinct flavors are various mixtures of sweet and bitter (or sour or salt), as separate odors are varying mixtures of sweet and rank. Thus, in ordinary human perception, all that we can taste is a mixture of sweetness and bitterness. As an activity of knowing, tasting is directly experiential: acting upon the heart as well as the mind, basic to eating and necessary for elemental growth, sapientia is also sapor, “flavor,” thus a varying mixture of bitter and sweet.

The close link of taste to knowing was often exploited in biblical literature as well as in the Greco-Latin tradition.13 For example: “Vinum et musica laetificant cor et super utraque dilectio sapientiae; tibiae et psalterium suavemfaciuntmelo- diam et super utraque lingua suavis” (Wine and music gladden the heart yet more so the pleasure of knowledge; flutes and the harp make a sweet melody yet more so a sweet tongue [Sirach 40.20–21]).14 The metaphoric translatio from gladdening the heart via song to the delight of learning, and from the sweetness of melody to the sweetness of oratory, is an ancient commonplace, as is the linkage of suavitas with dilectio. In many of the Psalms, “sweetness” is linked with speaking the name of God himself. “Quam dilexi legem tuam: tota die haec meditatio mea . . . quam dulce gutturi meo eloquium tuum super mel ori meo” (Oh, how I have loved your law! It is my meditation all day long. . . . How sweet are your words to my taste, more than honey to my mouth![Psalm118.97,103]).OrPsalm 18.11, in which the fear of the Lord and his judgments are said to be “dulciora super mel et favum” (sweeter than honey and the honeycomb).15

This persistence of suavis, enjoying even a sort of prominence among the divine names, is all the more peculiar since, as I said earlier, both Jerome and Augustine commented negatively on the use of suavis and dulcis to translate the Greek and Hebrew concepts.16 In his article on dulcedo Dei for the Dictionnaire de spiritualite ´,citing Joseph Ziegler, Jean Chaˆtillon remarks that the Hebrew root for what is sweet, like the Greek glukus, never developed the extended meanings of the Latin: words used in the Hebrew Bible that are based on the root mthq are directly predicated of things that taste sweet like honey or manna, but of other things and persons by means of simile (“sweet as honey”).17 Most often, those words used of persons or abstractions in the Greek and Hebrew Bible that are translated in the Latin by dulcis/suavis are based on roots that mean something other than “sweetness”: they mean “goodness” (Hebrew tob and Greek agathos) or “beautiful” (Greek kalos) or “kind, noble hearted” (Greek chrestos) or “agreeable” (Hebrew Úareb, noÚem). By contrast, both dulcis and suavis have greatly extended meanings, applicable in Latin to persons and abstractions—as Origen observed of both, they have multiple signification, ideal for conveying textual obscuritas and difficultas. In biblical Latin, sweetness is often directly predicated of words, eloquence,andvoice.Forexample,amidallthelushsensorylanguageoftheSong of Songs, all the tastes and smells and touching, the Vulgate describes only three things as dulcis: One is the Bridegroom’s fruit, which is dulcis to the Bride’s taste (Song2.3).The other two occurrences both concern language: the vox dulcis(Song 2.14) of the Bridegroom and the dulce eloquium (Song 4.3) of the Bride.

Latin dulcis and suavis were used by the Vetus Latina translatorsand by Jerome to translate Greek chrestos. In a letter (number 106), Jerome commented exten- sively on his decisions, including in Psalm 105.1: “Confitemini Dominoquoniam bonus” (Let us praise the Lord, for he is good). “For which, you say,in theGreek [that is, the Septuagint] we have read ‘for [he is] chrestos,’ that is suavis [asinthe Vetus Latina text]. But it is known that chrestos can be translated eitherasbonus or as suavis. But in the Hebrew is written ‘chi tob,’ which all with an equivalent word have translated ‘for [heis] bonus.’ Wherefore it is best advisable that chrestos be understood as bonus.”19 Jerome justifies his decision on philological grounds. But there was another serious objection to the overuse of suavis and dulcis, an objection on moral grounds. Augustine articulates this objection most strongly. In his commentary on Psalm 118, responding to the same problem in translating chrestos that Jerome considered, Augustine says, of the Vetus Latina use of suavis in verse 65, that bonitas is better for the Greek. “We have to remember that sweetness (suavitas) can be found in something evil (in malo), for unlawfuldeeds can be enjoyable, and it can occur even in legitimate carnal pleasure. We must therefore understand the sweetness, the chrestoteta of the Greek text, to be that afforded by the good things of the spirit. To avoid ambiguity, some of our translators therefore preferred to call it goodness.”20 Given this patristic ambivalence, it is remarkable that the proof text for the conception of God’s sweetness, Psalm 33.9, was known in two Latin versions continuously in the MiddleAges: “Gustate etvide tequoniam suavis est Dominus” in the Gallican and, in the Hebrew,“Gustate etvidete quoniam bonus Dominus.” The word Jerome was translating was Septuagint chrestos, Hebrew tob. Both Latin versions of this verse were thought correct: indeed both were sometimes written out side by side, particularly in manuscripts containing Psalter glosses.

The problem is not why Jerome changed his translation from suavis in the Gallican to bonus in the Hebrew (he explained that in his letter) but why suavis was continued at all. Chaˆtillon suggested that Jerome was conceding to the expectations of his audience, who had memorized the Psalms as they had no other text and would recoil from having their accustomed language violated. Perhaps, though elsewhere in the Psalms Jerome showed no such scruple.21

16 In the New Testament dulcis and suavis are found very seldom. One of very few instances is in 1 Peter 2.3, quoting Psalm 33.9. Another is 2 Corinthians 6.6, where in a list of virtues of the servants of God, suavitas is used to translate Greek chrestos, though the Vetus Latina had used bonitas. Yet a third is Matthew 11.30, “iugum enim meum suave est” (my yoke is sweet); againtheVulgateadopted suave where the Vetus Latina had bonum. Given Jerome’s own concern about this word (see below), these adoptions are curious. On Jerome’s changes, see the table and comments in Ziegler, pp. 41–43. 17 Chaˆtillon, “Dulcedo Dei,” citing Ziegler’s work as well.
17 Chaˆtillon, “Dulcedo Dei,” citing Ziegler’s work as well. 18 Two things are described in the Song of Songs as suavis: the Bridegroom’s guttur suavissimum (Song 5.16), usually understood to mean his speech, and the beauty of the Bride “suavis et decora sicut Hierusalem” (Song 6.3). Pulcher and dilectus are the predicates of choice.

19 Jerome, Epistolae 106.67,ed. I.Hilberg,rev.ed.,CSEL55(Vienna,1996),pp.282–83:“proquo inGraecolegisseuosdicitis:quoniamxrhsto´cidestsuauis.sedsciendum,quodxrhsto´cetin‘bonum’ et in ‘suaue’ uerti potest. denique et in Hebraeo ita scriptum est: ‘chi tob’, quod omnes uoce simili transtulerunt: quia bonus. ex quo perspicuum est, quod et xrhsto´c ‘bonus’ intellegatur.” Jerome purged many uses of dulcis and suavis from the Vetus Latina,replacingthemwithformsofbonusand bonitas: see Ziegler’s tables of Jerome’s changes, pp. 39–43. 20 Augustine,EnarrationesinPsalmis118.17.1,ed.E.DekkersandJ.Fraipont,CCSL40(Turnhout, 1956), pp.1718–19:“Verumquiasuauitaspotestesseetinmalo,quandoillicitaquaequeetimmunda delectant, potest etiam esse et in ea quae conceditur uoluptate carnali; sic debemus intellegere suaui- tatem, quam xrhsto´thta graeci uocant, ut in bonis spiritalibus deputetur; propter hoc enim eam et bonitatem nostri appellare uoluerunt.” The translation is that of Maria Boulding, Expositions of the Psalms, 99–120, Works of Saint Augustine 3/19 (Hyde Park, N.Y., 2003). 21 See Ziegler, pp. 41–43. Ziegler comments that Jerome very rarely used suavis for Hebrew tob; this is one of the very few instances.

If the reader combs through the examples chrestos is behind the 'sweet' readings and more importantly the dichotomy of the two fruit from the two trees might likely be preserved as 'sweet' and 'rotten' = chrestos and phaulos somewhere. I will have to check.

[Stephan Huller]

In Parzifal the proverb “arbore de dulci dulcia pomma cadunt” and the biblical comparison of human behavior with the fruit of trees (Luke 6:43–45; Matthew 12:33–35). It is amazing to see that the nature reading here (sweet fruit vs foul fruit) is completely wiped out of the Catholic canon at a very early period but is still preserved in the earliest heretical texts like that of the Gospel of Truth (= mid second century).

He was nailed to a cross. He became a fruit of the knowledge of the Father. He did not, however, destroy them because they ate of it. He rather caused those who ate of it to be joyful because of this discovery ...

While his wisdom mediates on the logos, and since his teaching expresses it, his knowledge has been revealed. His honor is a crown upon it. Since his joy agrees with it, his glory exalted it. It has revealed his image. It has obtained his rest. His love took bodily form around it. His trust embraced it. Thus the logos of the Father goes forth into the All, being the fruit of his heart and expression of his will. It supports the All. It chooses and also takes the form of the All, purifying it, and causing it to return to the Father and to the Mother, Jesus of the utmost sweetness. The Father opens his bosom, but his bosom is the Holy Spirit. He reveals his hidden self which is his son ...

But they are in him who will desire that they exist when he pleases, like the event which is going to happen. On the one hand, he knows, before anything is revealed, what he will produce. On the other hand, the fruit which has not yet been revealed does not know anything, nor is it anything either. Thus each space which, on its part, is in the Father comes from the existent one, who, on his part, has established it from the nonexistent. [...] he who does not exist at all, will never exist ...

For he came in the likeness of flesh and nothing blocked his way because it was incorruptible and unrestrainable. Moreover, while saying new things, speaking about what is in the heart of the Father, he proclaimed the faultless word. Light spoke through his mouth, and his voice brought forth life. He gave them thought and understanding and mercy and salvation and the Spirit of strength derived from the limitlessness of the Father and sweetness ...

For the Father is sweet and his will is good. He knows the things that are yours, so that you may rest yourselves in them. For by the fruits one knows the things that are yours, that they are the children of the Father, and one knows his aroma, that you originate from the grace of his countenance. For this reason, the Father loved his aroma; and it manifests itself in every place; and when it is mixed with matter, he gives his aroma to the light; and into his rest he causes it to ascend in every form and in every sound. For there are no nostrils which smell the aroma, but it is the Spirit which possesses the sense of smell and it draws it for itself to itself and sinks into the aroma of the Father ...

When it pleased him, then, that his son should be his pronounced name and when he gave this name to him, he who has come from the depth spoke of his secrets, because he knew that the Father was absolute goodness. For this reason, indeed, he sent this particular one in order that he might speak concerning the place and his place of rest from which he had come forth, and that he might glorify the Pleroma, the greatness of his name and the sweetness of his Father ...

Neither have they been deprived of the glory of the Father nor have they thought of him as small, nor bitter, nor angry, but as absolutely good, unperturbed, sweet, knowing all the spaces before they came into existence and having no need of instruction. Such are they who possess from above something of this immeasurable greatness, as they strain towards that unique and perfect one who exists there for them.

[Stephan Huller]

Note Josephus's description of his adversary Justus of Tiberius in Vita:

He incited the multitude to revolt, for his abilities lay in popular preaching, in invective against his opponents; and in the seductive witchery of his words, for he was not inexpert in the culture of the Greeks. Confident of that skill he set his hand to write a history of the Revolt for the purpose of covering-up the truth. Regarding this man, the phaulos life he led (ὡς φαῦλος τὸν βίον), and how with his brother he caused the great catastrophe, I shall explain a little in the progress of this work. [Vita 9]

This was the counsel of Simon; but Artanus the high priest demonstrated to them that this was not an easy thing to be done, because many of the high priests and of the rulers of the people bore witness that I had acted like an excellent general, and that it was the work of ill men (= φαύλων ἔργον = Justus) to accuse one (= Josephus) against whom they (= the high priests) had nothing to say. [Vita 194]