Chrysostom and Symeon (Acts XV, 14)

8/2/2019 Chrysostom and Symeon (Acts XV, 14)

1/14

Chrysostom and Symeon (Acts XV, 14)

Edgar R. Smothers

The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 46, No. 4. (Oct., 1953), pp. 203-215.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0017-8160%28195310%2946%3A4%3C203%3ACAS%28X1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D

The Harvard Theological Review is currently published by Cambridge University Press and Harvard Divinity School.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe 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 athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/cup.html.

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

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgThu Aug 9 04:40:52 2007
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0017-8160%28195310%2946%3A4%3C203%3ACAS%28X1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Dhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/cup.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/cup.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0017-8160%28195310%2946%3A4%3C203%3ACAS%28X1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D


2/14

CHRYSOSTOM AND SYMEON (Acts xv, 14)EDGAR R. SMOTHERS, S.J.

WESTADENCOLLEGETHEcircum stances an d the proceedings of the Council of J eru -salem, a s the y ar e presented in the Acts of the Apostles, will comereadily to every reader's m ind. Gen tile converts a t Antioch hadbeen disturbed by Judaeo-Christians who insisted on the rite ofcircumcision; so tha t a delegation was sent from the S yrian com-munity to consult the apostles and presby ters of the motherchurch. Pa ul and B arnaba s, veteran missionaries now, werechosen to lead the band. T h e session in the H oly C ity opened w itha general discussion, which subsided when St. Peter rose to spe ak:Brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among youth at th e Gentiles should hear from m y lips the word of the gospel, andbelieve. And God, the Knower of hearts, bore them witness, giving tothem the H oly Sp irit, just as to u s; an d H e made no distinction betweenus and them, having purified their hearts with the faith. . . ?

A unique opportunity was thus opened to Paul and Barnabasof recounting to receptive ears in Jerusalem the w onderful worksof God's grace among their ne op hy tes 2 I t remained, finally, forSt. James, the revered leader of the Judaeo-Christians, to proposedefinite measures, after an introductory discourse which openedwith the words:Bre thren , listen to me. Symeon has related how first God looked uponthe Gentiles, to take from them a people unto his Name. And the wordof the prophets agree s with this, a s it is written. . . .3

A long quotation follows; then , the decree. T h e gift of St. Lu kefor recreating, in highly condensed epitome, the salient featuresof a situation, app ears to unusual ad vantag e in this scene. Onecould hard ly imagine a happier course of parliam enta ry action-the assertion of precedent by Peter, the confirmation from ex-perience by P au l an d B arna ba s, the crucial adhesion of James,rallying a ll to a decision.

Acts xv, 7-1 I.'bid., 1 2 . Ibid., 13-21.


3/14

204 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEWT h e sensitiveness of th e literary art ist ap pe ars especially in

th e sty le of James' discourse, the Sep tuag int coloring of whichreminds us of the early pages of the Third Gospel. Notice thewords: ~ V ~ U & V[ r l y ~ u a ~ oa e & q 6 @ E& i n ~ u ~ E ' $ a ~ or p & ~ o v X a P ~ i vi[ iev&v Xabv 74 & V ~ ~ ~ T L8 ~ 0 5 . ~Who is this Symeon? The name is pure Semitic, with patr i-archal overtones. Simon, which is Greek, looks and soundsmuch like it , and appears to be used by Josephus interchange-ably with it .5 In the New Testament, we have positive evidenceof such an intercha nge, in th e opening verse of the Second Epistleof Peter: C V ~ E & VI i ~ p o qSo5Xoq KU; 6 r r 6 u ~ o h o q' I ~ U O ~p ~ u ~ o d . 6

T h a t James should introduce his opinion before the Councilby recalling th e earlier testimony of Simon Peter, com bining tha tapostle's a uth ority with his own, is most in keeping with th e occa-sion, a s th e au th or of A cts conceives it. Symeon's testimon y, ascondensed by James, corresponds adm irably with Peter 's . I t isquite Lucan to introduce the old form, Symeon, with all i ts He-braic associations, when James is speaking. T h e nam e has dr a-matic fitness, like Xao;h, which occurs nowhere, for Paul, exceptin the direct discourse of the Voice from heaven and on the lipsof Ana nias , in th e episode of Dam ascus.' Elsewhere, in Acts,just as Lu ke writes 61pwv, so he writes dadXos . When formalityis called for, in the angel's instruction to a Ro ma n cen turion ab outa man of whom he had never heard, we have it : d Ip w v& n v a ,89 i r r r ~ a X ~ i ~ a ~I k ~ p o q . ~

I t is of interest to recover, when we can , ancie nt testimonyIbid. , 14. On th e teart, see below, f.n. 11.5Cf . Th e Jewish War IV , 159, a n d H.St . J. Thackeray's note (L oe b ClassicalLib r ary : London-New Y ork , 1928).

' " Z l p ~ v "is here the reading of B and .I.,to speak only of uncials, and is pre-ferred by Westcot t and Ho rt , apparent ly alone among modern editors . T he greatbody of evidence, uncial and minuscule, is for " Z u f i e i v " . I n the La t in Vu lga te , aconverse ratio holds: "Simon" (o r "Symon") is the usual te xt ; "Simeon" is ex-ceptional (see the continuation of Wordsworth and White, Nouum Testamentum. . . La tin e 111, ii, Oxford, 1949,ad loc.).'Acts ix,4 and 17 ; xxii, 7 and 13 ; xxvi, 14.' Ib id . , x , 5 ; cf. 1 8 and 32. See , on a l l th i s , Henry J . Cadbury , The Mak ingof Luke-Acts (London , 1g27), C. xvi, "Language and Style"; in particular, onvariations of names, pp. 225-227. "The literal Semitic form of Simon Peter'sname, 'Simeon', occurs only once, and th at in t he speech of Jam es a t the councilof Jerusalem" (p. 227). Cf. Blass-Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichenGriechischT (Ggttin gen, 1g43), 8 53, 2, in both text and Anhang.


4/14

205HRYSOSTOM AND SYMEONth at throw s light on exegetical questions in the Book of Acts; forit is rare. T h e earliest opinion we have , on th e identity of Symeon,app ears to be tha t of I r e n a e w g T o illustrate the oneness of Godin the Old Testament and in the New, he quotes the Council ofJerusalem, giving Peter's discourse in full. Then he writes, with-out a bre ak, "Post quem Iacobus dixit, Viri fra tres , Simon retulit,"and continues with the words which sum up so well what Petersaid.1

"Simon" may be the translator's equivalent for Irenaeus'C V ~ E ~ V ,the author himself may have altered the name inrGreek.'' A t least, he assumed the identity of Symeon an d Pe ter,or he would hardly have brought the names so nearly together,in passages so closely para llel.Ou r only formal comm entary on the Book of Acts, from thepatr istic age, ap ar t from fragm ents of St. Ephrem,12 is the seriesof fifty-five Hom ilies, preached in the year 400, a t Constantinop le,by S t. John Chrysostom.13 His reference to Symeon is rem ark-able. W ithout d ebate he identifies him with someone who clearlyis not Peter. So unexpected a n opinion, from so imp ortant asource, invites consideration .

We can hardly examine the relevant passage critically, withoutgrasping the nettle of o ur text of the Hom ilies; for th e readingsvary. Let us see first the common text of our prin ted ed itions,according to which, after introducing S t. James, Chrysostom con-tinues :

'See, however, f a . 11 .' 'Adversus Haereses 111, xii, 17 (W . W. Harv ey, ed itor, Cam bridge, 1857: 11,69).' 'The reading Zupehv is invariable in the Greek codices of Acts In the Latin,however, "Simon" is widely read (see W ordsw orth an d White, No uum Testa-mentum . . . Latine, Actus Apostolorum, Oxford, 1905, ad loc., ap par atu s). Thisargues an exegetical opinion identical with that of Irenaeus: Symeon and Simonare one."Fred erick C. Conybeare, "The C om me ntary of Eph rem on Acts," in J. H .Ropes, The Text of Acts = F. J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Begin-nings of Christianity I11 (Lon do n, 1926), p. 373 ff.

l3C. Baur, Der Heilige Johannes Chrysostomus und seine Zeit I1 (Munich,1930)~84.


5/14

206 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

T h e other reading, noted in th e margin of Savile, is surp risinglyterse. Ins tead of the entire passage, from T LV ~ SOGTOY to the end,it has four words: dv 74 AOVK@ T h at is all.~ O + ~ T E ~ U U S . ~ ~Evidently th is phrase is par t of the sen tence, dv pd v t ~ ~ y r j u a ~ o ,which it modifies; and it is intended to identify Symeon unmis-takab ly, but n ot with Pete r. T h e longer reading reflects th e exist-

ence of different opinions; Peter could conceivably be the homo-nym for whom allowance is made. Inste ad of clarifying thequestion, however, the au tho r dismisses i t as irrelevant to edifica-tion.Without looking beyond the internal evidence, we may findreason enough to choose between these variants. T h e longer ischaracteristically an accomm odating text. I t would flow easilyfrom the hand of a scribe who had too much respect for his au tho r,on the one hand, and for dissenting opinion around him, on theother, to reject either. T h e short reading is disconcerting an dcategorical-a challenge to th e tem erity of a reviser.T he language of eithe r reading could be Chrysostom 's. I t isnot the literary style of the longer, bu t th e style of mind that isnoteworthy. "If he be this one, if he be th a t one, we have no t care -fully to inquire, but only to receive as needful what he has toldus." Th is is the vein of the Imi tatio : "Ask not who said this, bu ttake good heed w hat is said." I t is not like Chrysostom. H e is notwont to take refuge from an exegetical problem by turning itinto a question of piety . T h e inquiring, positive sp irit of theAntiochian school in which h e was formed is strong in him. T om ake way for m oral exhortation in his sermons, he leaves specu-lative theology largely aside, but not exegesis: that is the stuffof his discourse. Pietistic flight from a pertinen t question is no this hab it of mind.16

1 4 H om . X X X I I I , i ( I X , 253 D ) . References to Chrysostom's works, unlessotherwise specified, will be to t he Benedictine edition of th e Opera Omnia. Th epage numbers are those of the first edition (Paris, 1718-1738), which reappearin the medial margin of the second edition (Paris, 1834-1839), and as bracketedinserts in the reprint by Migne.'5 Opera O mnia, He nry Savile, editor, Et on , 1613, IV , 795.* B 6 i 'Der Goldene Mund' von Antiochien und Konstantinople, Johannes Chrysos-tomus, der grosse Prediger, war zu gleicher Zeit kein leerer Schwatzer, sondern ein


6/14

CHRYSOSTOM AND SYMEON 207So much, I believe, a reader of Chrysostom may without rash-

ness affirm; bu t a final decision between the readings ought no t tobe rendered on interna l evidence alone. W ha t is the sta te of thetext generally, in these Homilies; and how does it bear on theparticular case? Fortun ately, the larger question has been ex-plored. Our var iants a re, in fact, a telling illustration of the tworecensions of the Hom ilies on Acts, each of which has it s ownconsistent manuscripts, while some of the la ter codices, an d allour printed ed itions combine them. The y may be described asthe rough recension and the smooth, since it ha s long been recog-nized, and is easily verifiable, tha t the lit erary dres s of the fifty-five Homilies is somewhat tidier in one of them than in the oth er.T he unusual divers ity of the manuscript trad ition of Chrysos-tom, precisely in this i o r k , was remarked by th e older editors ;bu t it remained for He nr y Browne, translator of the Homilies onActs in the Oxford Library of the Fath ers, to make a thoroughinvestigation of the facts, and to draw adequate conclusion^.^^I n th e strength of his full collation of the two recensions, he con-vinced himself that the smooth recension is a systematic revisionof the rough, from beginning to en d; and th at it is a late revision,inspired by a rhetor's m entality. T he rough recension alone isauthentic, since it is in sense consistently superior to the sm ooth.I n addition to the evidence from the m anuscripts, Browne alsocalled attention to the important fact that only the rough recen-sion is represented in the many quotations from Chrysostom inthe ancient Catena on Acts.T h e present w riter, in the course of a fresh inves tigation, satis -fied himself that Browne's arguments were perfectly sound, andth at they were regnforced by the sta te of the biblical text in therough recension and in the smooth. As one ought to expect, theklarsehender, scharf denkender, sorgfaltig schreibender Philolog, der sich in dieheilige Schrift vertieft" (Cas par RenC Gregory, Einleitung in das Neue Tes tam ent,Leipzig, 1909,p. 3 6 9 ) . There is reason to affirm that the Homilies on Acts werepublished without a final, careful revision by the author's hand; but his spiritas exegete is in full evidence. T ak e, fo r examp le, one of his general o bserv ationson the author of the Book of Acts: '0 y & p iu ro pto yp d@ os s oX Xd 6 ~ t ~ i p v e i , a is o XX o bs o v v b y e i ~ a c p o 6 s (Horn . XX, i [IX, 1 6 g B l ) .17 Th e Homilies of S. Joh n Chrysostom on the .Acts of t he .Apostles, P a r t I1 =Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church XXXV (Oxford, 1 8 j z ) ,Preface.


7/14

208 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEWtext of Acts quoted in the Homilies approximates our textus re-ceptus, which was simply a late stage of the Antioch ian-By zantinedevelopment. T h e approximation is notably closer, however, inthe smooth recension than in the rough-an obvious sign ofrevision.18

Ho w does our pair of readings fit into this sch em e? U7ehaveseen that th e question of verbal style is no t involved. I t is theshorter reading, however, which we meet in the rough recension;and that is just where i t ought to be; the longer, in i ts style ofthought, betray s the reviser 's hand. T h e case is a striking ex-am ple of t he superio rity of t he rough recension over th e smooth.in their respective claims to au thenticity.

T h e longer text ha s i ts interest, however: i t bears w itness tothe shock of surp rise which readers would one da y feel a t theexegetical opinion of Chry sostom : Symeon, to whose au tho ritySt. James appeals, is Symeon who prophesied in Lu ke. L et usexamine this singular suggestion.

As to the identity of Sym eon, 6 i v 74 AOUKGrpo+?7.r~6uaq,he rewould seem to be little room for hesitation. Chry sostom e videntlyassumed that his l isteners would understand; and so they did.The Catena, in this case, not only reflects i ts usual dependenceon th e rough recension; but i t completes the sense, by quoting thef ir st words of the p rophecy : C V ~ E & V , np o+ r l~ ~6 ua q 'i v T@ AOUK@"NGv G ~ T o X ~ E L ~ Aiurro~a."ISAU 80GX6v U O U ,

I n Chrysostom's opinion, then , it would be Symeon of th e N un cdim ittis, whose nam e the Bishop of Jerusalem invoked so impres-sively, in opening his discourse: "Bro thers, hear me. Symeon hasrelated how first God looked upon the gentiles to take from thema people to his nam e."F or Symeon's eyes had seen the salvation which God had pre-par ed before th e face of all the peoples, a light for th e illuminationof t he gentiles, an d a glory of h is people Isr ae l. Between t he old

IRE.R . Sm others, "Le Texte des Homelies de saint Je an Chrysostom e sur les-4ctes des .4p8tres," Recherches de Science Religieuse XXYII (Paris, December,193,723 P. 513-if .Catena in Acta SS. .4postolorum. . . , ed. by J. .4. Cramer (Oxford, 1 8 3 8 ) ,p. 248. The source of the lemma is by oversight omit ted.


8/14

209HRYSOSTOM AKD SYhIEOKman's prophecy and the argument of James, there is a bond ofdeep sympathy .

No one who reads Chrysostom will object that such an identi-fication, from so brief a ph rase, the one h h o prophesied in L uke,lays unusual dem ands on his listeners. H e continually assumestheir ability to catch flying allusions to anyth ing in th e Bible, a ndsafely enough, i t would seem, in the present case. T h e lovableold ma n in th e scene of the Purification would alr eady be a famil-iar figure in Christian piety.20 ' ' tyith Symeon," said St. GregoryNazianzen, preaching a t Constantinople, on the Nativity mysteries,twenty years before Chrysostom, "we have held him in ourarms." 'lTh is identification involves a corollary, which is also take n forgran ted. Symeon is qu ote d by Jame s in his r81e of pro phe t. "Seehow discerning he is," says C hrysostom of the sp eak er, "cor-roborat ing his argument both from the new prophets and fromth e old." 2 "The old" is a plain reference to the continuation ofJame s' discourse: "And in agreem ent with this a re the words ofthe prophets, as it is written," with the quotation from Amosfollowing. "T he new prophe ts," therefore, ar e represented b ySymeon. A l i t t le later, Chrysostom returns to this conception.W he reas Symeon was well know n (6$Aop) from th e time in whichhe lived (& A TOG xp6vov), but lacking authority because he wasno t ancient ( .naA a~& ), ames quotes also the ancient prophet^.'^For the Judaeo-Christian community, Symeon would be aprop het, indeed, bu t of the New La w, not of the Old, as Chrysos-tom realized. H e draws a more remarkable contrast, elsewhere,between David and Abraham, both of whom had received thedivine promise. D av id , however, was in th e mou ths of every-one, both from his renown, and from the time in which he lived

In Chrysostom's t ime, the Feast of the Purification was already celebratedin Jerusalem (Peregrinatio Aetheriae xxvi: gthbrie Journal de Voyage, edited byHelene Pktrb, in Sources Chrbtiennes, Paris, 1948,p. 206). Symeon's prayer appearsas a vesper hymn in the Apostolic Constitutions VII, xlviii , 4, of the same epoch(Didascal ia et Const i tu t iones Apostolorum, ed. by F. X. Funk, Paderborn, 1905,p. q j 8 ; for the date, see p. xix ). I t is included in the set of canticles a t the endof the Codex Alexandrinus (569')." Ora ti o X X X IX , In s an c ta l u m in a , x iv (P . G . X X X V I , 349) ; for the date, seecol. 333 f.) ." H o m . X X X I I I , in initio ( I X , 253 C ) .231bid. (253 D E ).


9/14

210 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW(&A TOG ~po'vov) .T h e promise to Abraham , therefore, had fallensilent, because i t was ancient (n ah a~ o'v ); he one to David waspassed around by everyone, because it was fresh and new ( & snpdac$arov K ~ Zviov) - this, in the generation of Christ." ThusSymeon was SGhos &A TOG X ~ ~ V O V ,ompared to Amos.Up to a point, Chrysostom's opinion hangs together remark-ably well; b ut i t ha s its intrinsic weakness. James specifies theprophetic cha racter of his Old Testam ent qu otation ; his previousreference is introduced by a term which is appropriate not toprophecy , but to nar ration or Efrlyrjuaro.xplana t ion : ZV~EAVT h e verb, in the form er sense, is used in the near context in A cts,of P aul and Ba rn ab as , relating the works of God: 2frlyovpE'vwv6ua Enohp~v." This settles its meaning lucidly.Chrysostom is aware of th e difficulty, an d tries to surm oun t it :KU ; KCLAGS E?TEV,ZV,UEAV&$qy'IjUa~O,&S K ~ K E ~ V O V T ~ P W VXE'YELVyvdP7v: for he too reported t he mind of others.26 H is prophecywas so redolent of old tradition that one might say he related it,as PauI and B arna bas related the events of their a postolate.Such an explanation is straine d. I t would leave one ill a t ease,even if there were no alternative. If Chrysostom had recognizedPe ter in Symeon, he would not have come to such a pass. Giventhat simplest of all solutions, everything falls into place; andnothing needs explanation.Nothing- except the difference in names: Symeon is notSimon. Th is is the point from which a false dep arture would betake n. Chrysostom was attentive to the form of names, an d notin the least given to loose conjecture about them.27 To a biblicaI

In Mathhaeum Horn . I1 (VII, 24 AB ; in Frederick Field's edition, Cambridge,1839,I, 20).

26 .4cts xv, 12."Horn. X X X II I , i ( IX , z55C). Chrysostom's license in the use of demonstra t ivepronouns is well kno wn . See Field's edition I n M att. , vol. 111, Index 11, s. v .i ~ e i v o s ."H is series of four sermons at Antioch, De rnutatione nom inum , is an illustra-tion. Why was Saul's name changed to Paul? After much discussion, and theexamination of parallels from Old and New Testament, Chrysostom, in sporadicpassages, reaches the following conclusions: ( I ) Saul of Tarsus received his origi-nal name from his parents. Th ey were not proph ets; and it has no special sig-nificance. (2) I t was important that he should continue to be known by thisname a fter his conversion, so th at Christians everyw here would really believethat the zealous evangelist and the former persecutor were one. (3) After his


10/14

211HRYSOSTOM AND SYMEONquestion, he seeks, with unrivalled virtuosity, to find an answerin the Bible. H er e is a cardinal principle of his exegesis, and ofhis usual soundness. I n the instance, it allows him to go as tra y;for the sole proof in the New T estam ent th at Simon Pete r mightbe called Symeon was lacking in his canon:From his 11,000 New Testament citations, the following books havenone: the Apocalypse, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Thirdof John, and the Epistle of Jude. This agrees with the canon of theother Antiochians, including Theodore of Mopsuestia, except that healso rejects the Epistle of James.28T o test the point, with respect to th e Second Epistle of Pe ter,which alone concerns us, we should examine an apparent excep-tion. T h e Bened ictine editors of Chrysostom , in their In de x Lo-corum Scripturae Sacrae, include I1 Peter ii, 2 2 , with a crossreference to the Homilies on John, where the unflattering com-parison of the relapsing sinner appears in the following form:"EOLKE4 K V V ~74 ~ p b s~ ) V@ L O UYP~7ov~ T ~ V L ~ V T L . ~ ~I n both the "received" an d the critical text of the Ep istle, weread 76 ) I ~ L O V&$lpapa; the vari ant EYP~.rovapp ears in a few minus-cules and in a few quotations of the F athe rs. I t seems an obviousassimilation to the Old Testament source, the Septuagint text ofthe Book of Proverbs, which reads: ~ b va v ~ o i , p ~ ~ ~ v . 3 0From this great commonplace-book, Chrysostom quotes hun-dred s of times. Five times, in his authentic works, we meet th esaying about the dog, always with Z~ETOV.ne of these, in theletter Ad Theodorum lapsum, is a full and formal quotation; an di t s to t a l dependence on the Septuagin t i s ~nmis takable .~~lse-where, the text is handled with Chrysostom's customary freedom.M ontfaucon originally referred the parap hra se in the Homilies o nelection to the apostolate, it was fitting that the Holy Spirit give him a new name,just as the purchaser of a slave gives him a new name, to signify dominion.Hence nairkos Goirkos Xproroir 'IqooF K A ~ T ~ ST ~ U T O A O S .(4 ) The name of Paul issignificant because of the apostle and saint who bore it, not intrinsically, likeSimon's name, Peter.

" C. Baur, op. cit., I, 262.28 In Ioannem Hom. XXX IV, iii (V I I I , 199E).ao Proverbs xxvi, 11.= I , 3 2 c.


11/14

212 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIE\ITGenesis " to the Epist le; but , af ter full consideration, he retrac tedthis ascription, in favo r of the B ook of proverb^.^^

In these free quotations, in the printed edit ions, we read ~ h vI ~ L O V the substant ive agreeing wi th Proverbs , the possess iveETOV,with th e Epist le. W e hav e one example, in the H omilies on Acts,wh ere we know th at b oth readings, i'61ov an d E 'av ~o i av e man u-script support." Such varia nts, in informal discourse, a re weakindicatio ns, a t best, of litera ry dependence, so easily might th eorato r himself, to say nothing of the scribes, sub sti tute the on efor the other . Tischendorf, in his app aratu s on I1 Peter ii , 2 2 ,accepts the place which we hav e seen in th e Homilies on John asevidence for ilPc7ov; but he notes that the quotation is free.35" E P ~ r 0vs a strong va rian t; a nd i t argues Chrysostom's use of theBook of Proverbs.Ch ryso stom never sup plem ents the simile of th e dog with itsimmediate pendant in the Epist le, $9 AouuaPkvy cis K U A L ~ ~ ~ V,Boppo'pou, which would be e qually to his pu rpo se. I n so rob ust a nauth or, fast idiousness would be no motive for the omission. I twould seem that he is not familiar with the Second Epist le ofPe ter , or th at he chooses to ignore i t . I t left the sl ightest of tracesupon him, or none at al l .W e may sum marize al l we hav e hitherto said very briefly. N oidentification of Sym eon, to whose testim ony Ja me s a ppe als be-for e th e Council of Je rus alem , me ets all th e exigencies of circum -stance and of context so aptly a s the one in common possession:Symeon is Simon Peter. Chryso stom, missing the clue to this solu-t ion, launches a 8~6rcp0sAOGS which is not necessary, and is notsuccessful, in identifying Symeon with th e seer of th e N un cdimitt is.

Stanislas Giet, professor of ancient church history in the Uni-versi ty of Stras bo urg , has recently contributed, to a l i teratureIn G en. Horn. VI , i ( IV , 40 AB). W ith this , the paraphrase I n E pis t . I"'" adT im . Horn . V ad finenz ( X I , j78 B ) is almost identical.

83 VI, 309/10.I n A c ta H o rn . X X X I , i v ( I X , 246 D, last lines of th e column. Co d. mich .14 here reads T ~ ) YC ~ U T O O~ F F T O Y ) .'"Von Soden and M erk , on I1 Pe t . ii , 2 2 , re ta in the author i ty of Chrysostom,without specific reference, for E p e ~ o v .


12/14

CHRYSOSTOM AND SYMEON 213ever growing,36 a study in historica l criticism, L7Assemblke Apos-tolique et le Dkcret de Jkrusalem. Qui ktait Sym kon? 37 His an-swer to the question, Who was Symeon?, is very interesting.Since it is based on our passage in Chrysostom, and in conflictwith views expressed above, it must be duly considered.M. Giet questions the identification with P ete r. "L7 0n pe utse demander," he writes, "si I'identiti de ce Symkon avec Pierrektait anciennement admise"; " an d he cites the text from H omilyX X X I I I with which we are now familiar: T L V ~ S OGTOV ~ S v a l+ a u ~TAU ;.irb A O V K & ~ ~ ~ p d v o v *82 ~ T E ~ O V ~ 0 6 ~ ~ .X X O L 6 p ~ v ~ p o v

I n these words, he finds a prob able reflection of th e opinionsabout Symeon held at Antioch, which had once been the focusof th e con troversy between Juda eo-C hristians an d Gentiles: "Latradition n'identifiait pas Symion avec Pierre: on disait au con-traire qu'il s'agissait du personnage nommC par Luc ou d'unhomonyme." 39I t is no t, however, Symeon of the Infa nc y Gospel in whomM. Giet would find the ob ject of Chrysostom 's allusion. "Queviendrait faire ici," he asks, "le vieillard Symkon qui chantaitson Nunc dimittis au temps oh Jksus ktait enfan t? Person ne n 7 ajamais mentionnk la longkvitk qui 17a urait fait vivre encore undemi-sikcle! " 40There is another Symeon mentioned by St. Luke, in the Bookof Acts, X U ~ E A V K ~ X O ~ ~ E V O PIyeP, one of the five pro phets a nddoctors at Antioch from whom the Holy Spirit chose Barnabasand Paul . In M. Giet7sacute con jecture, he would be the m an-he , o r if no t he, a fellow Antiochian of the sam e name.41This Symeon would be an eminent personnage in the localchurch, and deeply immersed in the problems that produced theCouncil of Jerusalem. How na tu ra l th at he should play a cardinal

36 I t is enough to refer to T he Beginnings of Christianity (above , f.n. rz ) , whichma rks an epoch in the critical stud y of the Acts of the Apostles, an d, for latert i t les, to Dom Jacques Dupont, O.S.B., Les Problemes du Livre des Actes d'apr6sles travaux recents = Analecta Lovan iensia Biblica et Orientalia, S er. 11, fasc. 17(Louvain, 1950).37MClanges Jules Lebre ton I (Paris, 1951) = Recherches de Science ReligieuseX X X I X , 203 ff .

35 P . 204.38 L . C.40 P. 205.41 PP. 20516.


13/14

214 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEWr61e in its proceedings. In the foreshortened account containedin the Book of Acts, his interven tion has su nk from sigh t, exceptfo r St. James' allusion to it.42 Such, in brief, is RI. Giet's hypothe-sis.Against it, a num ber of considerations inevitably arise. Sincethere is so little of form al com me ntary on Acts, in the early cen-turies, Chrysostom's passing remark on th e identity of Symeonis of limited significance for anc ien t opinion. I n one au thor earl ierthan he, as we have seen, the identification with Peter is takenfor granted.43T he evidence tha t Chrysostom, in this case, represents the t ra-dition of Antioch, is derived from th e longer read ing of the per ti-nent text: TLV& . . . $auiv ' $Ah01 8 ~ .This is the form acceptedby the editors, but without criticism. If, as we have seen reasonto believe, it is a late revision,44 here is no proof that it reflectsAntioch a t all.In any case, it would seem precarious to derive a significanttradition from words such as these, afte r more than three hundredundocumented years.45 Chrysostom's opinion may well be An-tiochian, and a critical one, according to the exacting standardsof his schooI. He usually treats the earIy history of the churchin Antioch, just as we do, on th e basis of the docum ents we know.What, then, has Chrysostom himself to say about Symeon theBlack? H e comes to the episode of the five proph ets an d doctorsin the due course of the Homilies on Ac ts; an d he h as a remarkabo ut four of them. Ba rnab as an d Paul command principal atten-tion. Lucius of Cy rene is mentioned, and M anaen , th e foster-brother of Herod, only to stress, however, their undistinguishedstatus: "See by whom he (Paul) is ordained: by Lucius theCyrenean and M ana en; or, rather, by the Spirit. For the less im-pressive the ministers, the more manifest the grace of God." 4"The name of Symeon Niger had occurred, like all the rest of

42 Pp. 206-210.43 Above, p. noj.44 Above, p. 205-208.With no evidence of a tradition, "Niger" appears in a list of New Testamentnames said by St. Epiphanius to be of the Seventy-two Disciples (Luke x, I and

17): Panarion, P 50 (ed. K . Holl I, Leipzig, 1915,p. 232 , 9 ) . I find no earliermention of him, outside the Book of Acts."I n Acta Horn. XX VI I , i ( I X , 215 E-216 A).


14/14

2 1 5HRYSOSTOM AND SYMEONthem, in Chrysostom 's reading of the biblical text. H e is theonly one of the five who is never mentioned again. T h a t is clearlynot a symptom of renown; while a hypothetical homonym of An-tioch is quite unknow n.Within the terms of Chrysostom's exegesis, M. Giet's elimina-tion of th e earlier Syrneon is surely premature. Th ere is no ques-tion of his presence a t the Council. H e is a prophet, according toChrysostom, recent in comparison with Amos, as David was re-cent, compared to Abrah am; and as a prophet, he, with Amos, hasa place in Jam es' d i s c ~ u r s e . ~ ~ere is no disenchanting sequel ofhis song.48"Symeon who prophesied in Luke" serves very well as a de-scription of th e holy old man of the N unc dim ittis, well knownas he was, and a s the T hird Gospel was, to everyone. I t wouldbe a most obscure allusion, above all in Constantinople, wherethese Homilies were delivered, to Symeon of Antioch, either toone otherwise totally unknown, or to one who could be so easilyidentified by giving him his own full name, Symeon, who iscalled Niger.I n full and respectful cognizance of M. Giet's contentions, forreasons indicated, I remained persuaded that Chrysostom identi-fies Symeon of St. James w ith Symeon of the Nun c dimittis; an dthat in doing so he is misled; there is no probability in favor ofan y Symeon other than Simon Peter.

" .4bove, p. 209 .4sChrysostom, I n M att . Horn. V III , iii (VII, 124 A ) , notes that Symeon, atthe Presentation, was nearing his end: rBXXwv cintelvar.

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mihail-bahrim
View:	243 times
Download:	0 times

Chrysostom and Symeon (Acts XV, 14)

Documents