Last Things

by Bynum, Caroline Walker; Freedman, Paul;

  83. Suffering gained redemption, the expiation of sins, the liberation from death, and the new life of the resurrection. After death came the reward—the assimilation of the body to Christ, which was glorification.

  84. Tert. scorp. 6.8 (CCL 2, 1080): “Porro et si fidei propterea congruebat sublimitati et claritatis aliqua prolatio, tale quid esse oportuerat illud emolumenti, quo magno constaret: labore, cruciatu, tormento, morte. Sed respice conpensationem, cum caro et anima dependitur—quibus in homine carius nihil est, alterum manus dei, alterum flatus,—ipsa dependi in profectum quorum est profectus, ipsa erogari quae lucri fiant, eadem pretia quae et merces.”

  85. The balanced opposition of the four elements in the Ionian philosophers is a legacy to Plato and Aristotle and thus to the educated Christian world; see Gregory Vlastos, “Equality and Justice in Early Greek Cosmologies,” Classical Philology 52 (1947): 155–78. On a more instinctive level, reciprocity governs social relationships not only in gift-giving but within the family itself. In both Greece and Rome, the gift of a father’s love indebted the son to repay that love when the father became dependent in old age. Love and gratitude meant obligation in the highest sense of pietas and religio for the Romans; Greek tradition also had a corresponding ethics of responsibility going back to Solon in the sixth century; see Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City, ed. A. Momigliano and S. Humphreys (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980); George Dumézil, La religion romaine archaïque (Paris: Payot, 1974), 131–41. For patterns of equilibrium, see Claude Lévi-Strauss, The Elementary Structure of Kinship, rev. ed., trans. James Harle Bell and John Richard von Sturmer, ed. Rodney Needham (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), who argues that ideas of reciprocity originate in systems of kinship, marriage, and economic (gift) exchange; see esp. 52–67 and 84–97. Similar arguments are made by Marcel Mauss, The Gift, trans. W. D. Halls (New York: W. W. Norton, 1990). How reciprocity and gift exchange lie behind patterns of sacrifice is suggested in Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss, Sacrifice: Its Nature and Functions, trans. W. E. Halls (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964); see also J. Van Baal, “Offering, Sacrifice, and Gift,” Numen 23 (1975): 11–179, who stresses the need to reciprocate the offering (sacrifice) given. The monistic universe of the Hebrews stressed the human obligation to honor God as well as one’s parents (i.e., the first four commandments). Finally, the principle of reciprocity is manifest in the communicatio idiomatum unifying the two natures of Christ; see Alois Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, trans. John Bowden, 2nd ed. (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975).

  86. Min. Fel. Oct. 17.11 (CSEL 2, 22–23); Tert. apol. 11.5 (CCL 1, 107–8); Lact. opif. 1.10–12 (SC 213, 108 and 110) (this whole work is devoted to the topic of divine providence as evidenced in creation, particularly of the soul and body); Iren. haer. 3.25.1–2 (PG 7, 968–69).

  87. Apocalypticism can be found among certain philosophers of the early empire, e.g., Lucan’s Pharsalia, Seneca’s Thyestes.

  88. Cf. Cypr. ep. 55.16.1 (CCL 3B, 274).

  89. Cypr. laps. 27 (CCL 3, 236).

  90. Most works on the problem of free will and determinism focus either on the classical period or the fourth century (Augustine and Pelagianism); exceptional is Dom David Armand, Fatalisme et liberté dans l’antiquité grecque (Louvain: Bibliothèque de l’Université, 1945). Late antiquity is treated briefly in Albrecht Dihle, The Theory of Will in Classical Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982). See also Pamela Huby, “The First Discovery of the Freewill Problem,” Philosophy 42 (1967): 353–62, and Joseph P. Farrell, Free Choice in St. Maximus the Confessor (South Canaan, Pa.: St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 1989).

  91. Origen wrote with a hope characteristic of this heroic age: “man received the honor of the image of God (imago dei) in his first creation, whereas the perfection of God’s likeness (similitudo) was reserved for him at the consummation. The purpose of this was that man should acquire it for himself by his own earnest efforts to imitate God (propriae industriae studiis ex Dei imitatione).” Or. prin. 2.6.1 (GCS 5, 509), an exegesis of Gen. 1:26–28: “Let us make man in the image and likeness of God.” See also Or. prin. 3.6.1 (GCS 5, 280–81; Or. hom. in Ex. 6.5 (GCS 6, 196–97). See Arche e telos, ed. Ugo Bianchi and Henri Crouzel (Milan: Pubblicazioni della Université Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 1981), 58–121. At the heart of heroic martyrdom lay a fundamental belief in human agency as the basis on which Christians are rewarded or punished. Predestination is viewed as little better than fate and determinism. This is an optimistic universe where humanity has an effective free will. Augustine will undermine this heroic ideal, presenting human beings as radically dependent on God. While earlier writers would not deny human dependence on divine grace, their exhortations assume human agency and an active cooperation with divine grace that earns them their crown. For Origen, this connection between free will, grace, and an optimistic end of the universe is presented in Constantine N. Tsirpanlis, “Origen on Free Will, Grace, Predestination, Apocatastasis, and Their Ecclesiological Implications,” The Patristic and Byzantine Review 9 (1990): 95–121. In general, see Gerhard B. Ladner, The Idea of Reform (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1967), 63–132; Joseph P. Farrell, Free Choice in St. Maximus the Confessor (South Canaan, Pa.; St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 1989), 178–90, 195–228.

  92. Ign. Smyrn. 11.3 (SC 10, 166).

  93. Iren. haer. 3.20.1–2 (PG 7, 942–43).

  94. Being created in the image of God, humanity could imitate the archetype and thus participate in the divine goodness. The end would be the assimilation of the image to the archetype, although personalities would remain distinct. In the East, this is the doctrine of yévsiw, in the west deificatio. See J. Gross, La divinization du chrétien d’après les Pères grecs (Paris, 1938); Gerhart B. Ladner, “The Concept of the Image in the Greek Fathers and the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy,” Dumbarton Oaks Studies 6 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1953); idem, The Idea of Reform (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1967); Henri Crouzel, Théologie de l’image de Dieu chez Origène, Théologie 34 (Paris: Aubier, Editions Montaigne, 1956); Régis Bernard, L’image de Dieu d’après Saint Athanase, Théologie 25 (Paris: Aubier, Editions Montaigne, 1952); Michel Aubineau, S.J., “Incorruptibilité et divinization selon saint Irênée,” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 44 (1956): 25–52.

  95. For example, Tertullian, Origen, and Irenaeus in the pre-Constantinian church. See Hans Urs vo Balthasar, “Apokatastasis,” Trier Theologische Zeitschrift 97 (1988): 169–82; Brooks Otis, “Cappodocian Thought as a Coherent System,” Dumbarton Oaks Studies 12 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958); “Les fondaments cosmologiques de l’eschatologie d’Origène,” Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 43 (1959): 32–80; A. Méhat, “Apocatastase, Origène, Clément d’Alexandrie, Act 3: 21,” Vigiliae Christianae 10 (1956): 196–244; Paulo Siniscolo, “ ‘apokatastasiw, apokayiothni nella tradizione della Grande Chiesa fino ad Ireneo,” Studia Patristica 3 (1961): 380–96.

  96. M. Mar. et lac. 13.5 (ACM, 212).

  97. Or. mart. 28 (GCS 1, 24). See Gerard E. Caspary, Politics and Exegesis: Origen and the Two Swords (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), for an analysis of the structure of Origen’s thought. See also Robert J. Daly, S.J., “Sacrificial Soteriology in Origen’s Homilies on Leviticus,” Studia Patristica 17 (1982): 872–78. See also Cypr. ep. 76 (CCL 3A, 612–13).

  98. Cypr. ad Donat. 6 (CCL 3A, 6). On the violent tenor of life, see several articles from Châtiment dans la cité: supplices corporeles et peine de mort dans le monde antique, Collection de l’Ecole Française de Rome 79 (Rome: Ecole Française de Rome, 1984); François Hinard, “Le male mort: exécutions et statu du corps au moment de la prière proscription,” 225–311; Jean-Pierre Callu, “Le jardin des supplices au Bas-Empire,” 313–59; Denise Grodzynski, “Torture mortelles et catégories sociales: les Summa Supplicia dans le droit romain aux IIIe et IVe siècles,” 361–403.

  99. Hell is worse than any torture: M.
Polyc. 11.2 (ACM, 10); M. Ptol. et Luc. 2 (ACM, 39); M. Lyon. 26 (ACM, 68); M. Pion. 24 (ACM, 142).

  100. M. Apollon. 25 (ACM, 96).

  101. M. Lyon. 26 (ACM, 68).

  102. Tert. resurr. 40.8 (CCL 2, 974).

  103. See Cypr. laps. 15 (CCL 3, 227–28); Cypr. laps. 25 (CCL 3, 234–35).

  104. Tert. coron. 2.4 (CCL 2, 1042).

  105. While the sources encourage that the Christian have a personal disposition of penitence to God, public penance for serious sins was limited to once in a lifetime; see Paul Galtier, L’église et la rémission des péchés aux premiers siècles (Paris: Gabriel Beauchesne et ses fils, 1932), 22–70; Cyril Vogel, Le pécheur et la péntience dans l’église ancienne (Paris: Editions du Cerf, n.d.), 1–25; Nathanel Marshall, The Penitential Discipline of the Primitive Church, Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology 13 (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1844), 44–84.

  106. Tert. cult.fem. 1.1.1–2 (CCL 1, 343–44).

  107. See Tert. coron. 10.1–2 (CCL 2, 1053).

  108. Tert. cult.fem. 1.8.5 (CCL 1, 350–51). Now one even witnessed sexual pleasure in killing; see Tert. cult.fem. 1.8.5 (CCL 1, 350–51); Cypr. ad Donat. 7 (CCL 3A, 6–7).

  109. M. Ptol. (entire) (ACM, 38 and 40).

  110. Tert. cult.fem. 1.4.2 (CCL 1, 347).

  111. Tert. cult.fem. 2.2.5 (CCL 1, 355).

  112. See Tert. cult.fem. 1.8.5 (CCL 1, 350–51); Tert. spect. 1.4 (CCL 2, 227).

  113. Tert. spect. 2.7 (CCL 1, 228).

  114. Or. mart. 9 (GCS 1, 9–10).

  115. Two treatises (De lapsis, De ecclesiae catholicae unitate) address the disruption caused by penitential practices. The lapsed took advantage of privileges of penance given to confessors, and this undermined the power of the bishop. See also Cypr. eps. 15–19, 25, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 55, and 56.

  116. The appearance of sin in this form was the result of the post-Constantinian monasticism, in which a prime vocation of monks of the desert was examination of conscience; this view of sin would raise the radical doubts about the depth of the moral dislocation caused by Original Sin that Augustine’s writings would foster. See Régis Jolivet, Le problème du mal d’après saint Augustin (Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1936); Stanislas Lyonnet, “Péché,” Dictionnaire de spiritualité ascétique et mystique: doctrine et histoire, ed. Marcel Viller, et al. (Paris: Beauchesne, 1984), 12: 790–815; Théologie du péché, ed. Ph. Delhaye et al., Bibliothèque de Théologie 7 (Tournai: Desclée and Co., 1960), 293–514, esp. 456–474.

  117. On this general change of sensibilities, see Robert Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); more specifically, see Joseph Ntedika, “Eschatologie et Pénitence,” in Message et Mission (Louvain: Editions Nauwelaerts; Paris: Béatrice-Nauwelaerts, 1968), 109–27.

  118. 1 Clem. 24.1 (Funk, 93).

  119. 1 Clem. 36.2 (Funk, 107).

  120. Tert. scorp. 6.10–11 (CCL 2, 1080–81). The first baptism gained forgiveness of sins but could not be repeated. This was why the baptism of martyrdom was given us, Or. mart. 30 (GCS 1, 26–27). Significantly, the martyrs’ baptism by blood would cleanse many, not only themselves, Or. mart. 30 (GCS 1, 26–27): “As Christ brought cleansing into the world, perhaps baptism by martyrdom also served to cleanse many.” Cf. Cypr. Fort. 4 (CCL 3, 185): “hoc esse baptisma in gratia maius, in potestate sublimius, in honore pretiosius, baptisma in quo angeli baptizant, baptisma in quo Deus et Christus eius exultant, baptisma post quod nemo iam peccat, baptisma quod fidei nostrae incrementa consummat, baptisma quod nos de mundo recedentes statim Deo copulat. In aquae baptismo accipitur peccatorum remissa, in sanguinis corona uirtutum. Amplectenda res et optanda et omnibus postulationum nostrarum praecibus expetenda, ut qui serui Dei fuimus simus et amici.”

  121. M. Scill. 15 (ACM, 88).

  122. M. Mont. et Luc. 7.4 (ACM, 231).

  123. M. Fruct. 3.2 (ACM, 178).

  124. M. Fruct. 5.2 (ACM, 182).

  125. M. Pion. 21.4 (ACM, 164).

  126. Tert. resurr. 57.13 (CCL 2, 1005): “Permitte hanc et deo potestatem per uim illius demutationis condicionem, non naturam, reformandi, dum et passiones auferuntur et munitiones conferuntur. Ita manebit quidem caro etiam post resurrectionem eatenus passibilis, qua ipsa, qua eadem, et tamen inpassibilis, quia in hoc ipsum manumissa a domino, ne ultra pati possit.”

  127. Tert. resurr. 61–62 (CCL 2, 1009–11).

  128. The “unjust and intemperate [would] be punished in eternal fire,” while “the virtuous, that is those who live like Christ, [would] dwell in a state that is free from suffering,” Just. 2 apol. 1.1 (PG 6, 441).

  129. Just. I apol. 21.8, 21 (SQ 1, 18). See note 94 above for a bibliography on divinization and the reformed body.

  130. Tert. orat. 28.2 (CCL 1, 273).

  131. Daley, Hope, 236, argues that this was asserted by Origen’s later critics, citing Justinian Ep. ad Menam, Anathema 5, ed. E. Schwarts, ACO III 213.25–26; Council of 553, Anathema Against the Origenists, ed. J. Straub, ACO IV, I, 249, 19–22, and argues that this stems from a misunderstanding of Origen’s ideas. See A. M. Festugière, “Le Corps glorieux ‘sphéroïde chez Origène,” Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 43 (1959): 81–86.

  132. Tert. resurr. 48.8 (CCL 2, 988); Tert. adv. Marc. 5.9.2–6 (CCL 1, 689), cf. 1 Cor. 15: 21; Tert. adv. Marc. 5.10.7–10 (CCL 1, 693), cf. 1 Cor. 15: 45–50.

  133. Tert. adv. Marc. 5.9.5 (CCL 1, 689).

  134. See Caroline Walker Bynum, The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200–1336 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), 19–58. Questions of the body and martyrdom have rightly drawn much interest; see, e.g., Maureen Tilley, “The Ascetic Body and the (Un)Making of the World of the Martyr,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 59 (1991): 467–79; Brent Shaw, “Body/Power/Identity: Passions of the Martyrs,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 4 (1996): 269–312.

  135. Ign. Eph. 3.1 (SC 10, 70); Rom. 2.1 (SC 10, 126); Rom. 4.1–3 (SC 10, 130); Rom. 5.3 (SC 10, 132). See Th. Preiss, “La mystique de l’imitation du Christ et de l’unité chez Ignace d’Antioche,” Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 18 (1938): 197–421; Karin Bommes, Weizen Gottes: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Martyriums bei Ignatius von Antiochen (Cologne: P. Han, 1976); Sergio Za-tartu, “Les concepts de vie et de mort chez Ignace d’Antioche,” Studia Patristica 33 (1979): 324–41; Charles Munier, “La question d’Ignace d’Antioche, Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972–), 27:1 (1993): esp. 424–27, 455–63; J. Van Eijk, La résurrection, 99–126.

  136. Tert. fug. 14.2 (CCL 2, 1155).

  137. Tert. adv. Marc. 5.11.15 (CCL 1, 699).

  138. Tert. resurr. 40.10–11 (CCL 2, 974).

  139. Ign. Rom. 4.3 (SC 10, 130).

  140. Tert. resurr. 40.10–11 (CCL 2, 974); resurr. 40.14 (CCL 2, 975). See M. Mont. et Luc. 10.4 (ACM, 222); the body is the temple of and coheir with Christ in M. Mar. et lac. 5.8 (ACM, 200). To “share the cup” or “chalice” of the Lord’s suffering (see Luke 22: 42; Mark 10: 38) meant one would also share his glory; see M. Polyc. 14.2 (ACM, 12); “Seek to die a martyr,” Tertullian advised, “so that he may be glorified in you who suffered for you.” Tert. fug. 9.4 (CCL 2, 1147).

  141. Tert. scorp. 6.8 (CCL 2, 1080): “Porro et si fidei propterea congruebat sublimitati et claritatis aliqua prolatio, tale quid esse oportuerat illud emolumenti, quod magno constaret: labore, cruciatu, tormento, morte. Sed respice conpensationem, cum caro et anima dependitur—quibus in homine carius nihil est, alterum manus dei, alterum flatus,—ipsa dependi in profectum quorum est profectus, ipsa erogari quae lucri fiant, eadem pretia quae et merces.”

  142. M. Lyon. 24 (ACM, 68): Quoting the sixth Maccabee brother, Origen wrote of the expiation of sin through willing self-sacrifice, “Since we are paying these penalties for our sins so that we may be cleansed by our suffering, we suffer them willingly,” Or. mart. 25 (GCS 1, 22).

  143. Tert. scorp. 11.1–3 (CCL 2, 1091–93); scorp. 5.7–10 (CCL 2,
1076–77).

  144. Cypr. ep. 31.2.1 (CCL 3B, 153).

  145. M. Mont. et Luc. 6.1 (ACM, 224).

  146. M. Mont. et Luc. 22.2 (ACM, 236).

  147. M. Carp. 7 (ACM, 22). M. Carp. (ACM, 24).

  148. M. Poly. 2 (ACM, 5).

  149. Cypr. Fort. 4 (CCL 3, 185); also Or. mart. 13 (GCS 1, 13).

  150. The theme of “despising death” is a central point of comparison between the voluntary death of the martyr versus that of the classical hero and gladiator. See Christel Butterweek, “Martyriumsucht” in der alten Kirche? Studien zur Darstellung und Deutung frühchristlicher Martyrien, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 87 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995); Theofried Baumeister, Die Anfänge der Theologie des Martyriums, Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie 45 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1980); Arthur J. Droge and James D. Tabor, A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom Among Christians and Jews in Antiquity (New York: HarperCollins, 1992); Carole Straw, “A Very Special Death: The Christian Martyr and Classical Tradition,” Martyrdom, ed. Margaret Cormack (Missoula, Mont.: Scholar’s Press, forthcoming).