Précis: Ulrich Schmid's 2014 "The Diatessaron of Tatian"

A Précis of
Chapter six of Ehrman, Bart and Michael Holmes, Editors, 2014 The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, Second Edition, Brill.

This volume is an updating and expansion on the first edition of 1995. The volume contains 28 articles to cover the current status of research on many basic areas in NT TC. The first 16 chapters survey the sources of the NT text available to us. The 12 chapters making up the second main part of the book focus on NTTC Theory and Method.

Précis by Joseph Abrahamson

“Chapter Five: The Diatessaron of Tatian.” by Ulrich B. Schmid, pp. 115-142

[Note: this chapter demonstrates how important it is to understand the philosophical and methodological assumptions of scholars in their fields. And it demonstrates how important it is to recognize when these assumptions and methods change and why. Using the term from Thomas Kuhn: A paradigm shift has recently taken place in this particular area of research. This shift in paradigm affects the nature of what is considered data, how that data can be used as evidence, the kinds of standards for arguments and evidence, as well as openness about methodologies. This is especially important for those who look at Textual Criticism as simply “lower criticism” with the assumption that as a field it has nothing to do with “higher criticism”]

In the first edition (1995) of this book William L. Petersen wrote the chapter covering the Diatessaron. He summarized scholarship on the topic from 1923 to that date. Petersen died in 2006. The period he surveyed saw many advances and changes in Diatessaronic scholarship. Schmid points out that the fifteen years since that publication have increased in data and insight to call for a paradigm shift. This new paradigm Schmid labels the new perspective on the Diatessaron, patterning the name after the new perspective on Paul in Pauline studies.

Argument for a Greek Original Text

Under what is the author calls the old perspective Petersen argued that the “Diatessaron was almost certainly composed in Syriac.” (115n5) Schmid in the new perspective argues for a Greek original.

“The bare mechanics of composing a gospel harmony appear to require sources and end product to be in one and the same language.”

For Schmid it “seems hardly conceivable to perform a close word-by-word harmonization from Greek gospel texts and a Syriac translation simultaneously, without at least one intermediate Greek harmony stage during the compositional process.

• “There is no direct evidence” that “Syriac versions of the canonical Gospels already existed.”
• If one supposes such Syriac versions did exist for Tatian, then: “What evidence is there that Tatian composed any of his works in a language other than Greek?
• Tatian’s “apologetic discourse was performed in Greek”
• “The existence of multiple gospel writings was an issue in attacks on Christianity (cf. Celsus in Origen, Contra Celsum 2,27)”
• Schmid views it as unlikely “that Tatian would have missed the opportunity to write up a Greek gospel harmony to counter such attacks.”
• He concludes that “Tatian could have translated and issued a version of the Diatessaron in Syriac, but likely after he had composed it in Greek.”(115f,n5)

The State of the Text of the Diatessaron

The “original text of the Diatessaron is lost” (116) and must be reconstructed “by working through a great number of sources that are considered to have come under the influence of the Diatessaron.”(116, italics mine) An overly ambitious ten month project began in 1997 by six scholars on over “a hundred manuscripts and sources” in a variety of languages. These scholars “started to pursue more modest projects on their own” with the goal of bringing these together. “A unifying feature of such projects was the focus on understanding the individual historical and cultural settings of these harmonies within medieval Christianity and their traceable lineages between each other, prior to utilizing them for the reconstruction of a lost late second-century gospel harmony.” Petersen’s death in 2006 was a great loss which meant that his advocacy for the old perspective is gone.

A Historical Critical Goal of Reconstruction

Taitian composed the Diatessaron in about the AD 160s-170s. His text would be a witness to the “gospels in the form they had at that time. Reconstruction of the Diatessaron’s text therefore provides the researcher with a ‘snapshot’ of the gospels as Tatian knew them in the mid-second century.”(116)

[Note: this should give the researcher some pause to consider how historical critical frameworks shape both the reconstruction of the Diatessaron and the weight such hypothetical reconstructions should carry with respect to conclusions or suggestions made about the development of the Gospel texts.]

From here Schmid organizes his chapter into three chronological periods: 1) The old perspective up to 1994, 2) scholarship from 1995 and on, and 3) explaining the nature and methodology of the new perspective.

The ‘Old Perspective’ on the Diatessaron

The old perspective grew out of a challenge to the previously accepted view that “Codex Fuldensis lies at the heart of the Western harmony tradition.”(119) Fuldensis (F) originated before mid-sixth century. It is a Latin ms which contains the whole NT, but the gospels are present as a harmony rather than individual books. “Victor of Capua, who commissioned the entire manuscript between 541 and 546 … concluded that it [the gospel harmony] was likely the work of Tatian.”(119) But it cannot be determined how much Victor “might have reworked the harmony’s text.”(120) While scholars agree that F is ultimately derived from Tatian’s Diatessaron it has many readings conforming to the Vulgate of Jerome which would date after AD 400. This renders F “most unsuitable for reconstructing the exact working of Tatian’s (lost) Diatessaron.”(120)

Scholars since the late nineteenth century have believed a western version of the Diatessaron existed. In the early twentieth century confidence grew that this version could be found by researching medieval harmonies in Dutch, German, and Italian. These scholars argued that supporting evidence were readings that were found to be the same as those in Old Latin texts or the then current view of an Eastern Diatessaron witness. These readings were not in F so they were not transmitted through F. And these readings were considered older than both the Vulgate and F. This was taken as evidence that these readings were closer to the original Diatessaron. In this way “Diatessaron scholarship developed the hypothesis of an Old Latin version of Tatian’s Diatessaron as old as pre-200 CE…”(120) From this grew the then “‘standard’ procedure in Diatessaronic studies: (1) screening vernacular gospel harmonies of quite late dates and differing types against Vulgate Codex Fuldensis in order to identify differences, and (2) finding parallels in remote branches of the gospel text tradition, preferably in what are considered to be Eastern Diatessaronic witnesses, to those differences from Codex Fuldensis.”(120f) This was at the heart of Petersen’s method in the old perspective.

This old perspective resulted in a paradox that even though F is the oldest witness in the West, the history of that tradition has been reconstructed based on manuscripts that “are seven hundred to eight hundred years younger than” F. (121) “As a result, even the crucial parts of the history of the Latin harmony tradition were compiled from the vernacular harmonies without bothering to study the largely unpublished Latin manuscripts still extant today.” (121)

Diatessaron Scholarship from 1995 Onward

Here Schmid discusses two areas of scholarship that are distinguished by whether they use Eastern sources or Western sources. These studies are significant both in what they treat and methodology. They represent the struggle of the paradigm shift from the old perspective to the new perspective.

First the Eastern.
1994 Tjize Baarda’s Essays on the Diatessaron used “Ephraem’s commentary on the Diatessaron wherever possible as the main point of reference.”(122) This differed from the two point method under the old paradigm.

In the 1990s a print debate took place between Jan Joosten and Robert F. Shedinger on Tatian’s use of the OT Peshitta. Joosten used only the Old Syriac and Peshitta gospels as his point of reference. Shedinger faulted him claiming that both Eastern and Western Diatessaron sources were necessary for such work. “[T]hat is, one must adopt the procedures employed by the proponents of the old perspective.” In 2001 Joosten followed Shedinger’s reproof, but “came up with even more evidence of his contention.” (122) Shedinger published his doctoral thesis that year restating his view. Petersen negatively reviewed Shedinger’s thesis while explicitly stating that he “endorses neither position.” At the heart of Petersen’s critique was “lexical insensitivity to polysemous words” (123) which did not necessarily reflect unique readings in translation. Out of this debate the problems of  methodology from the old perspective came into focus. In 2006 Giovanni Lenzi suggested a different historical development theory which has not gained wide acceptance. [Note: the nature of this debate and the sweeping revisions these make in the reconstruction of the Diatessaron and its hypothetical history should make exegetes much more cautious in their consideration of so-called Diatessaronic readings.] Schmid lists a handful of other studies that are significant in the methodological debate and the struggle between the old perspective and the emerging new perspective. One main shift in focus was that the old perspective tended to focus on how to establish individual readings while the emerging new perspective was struggling with how to establish the order of the sequences in the harmonies and their relationship to the Diatessaron. There is still disagreement over how much significance particular manuscripts and manuscript traditions should be given in reconstructing the Diatessaron.(124-6)

Western Sources
Schmid states that “the starting point for the emergence of the new perspective on the Diatessaron” was in 1999 in Queeste: Journal of the Medieval Literature in the Low Countries. The focus was on “one of the most prominent sources of the Western Diatessaron tradition,” the Liège Diatessaron. (126-127) This research demonstrated that the resources available in Medieval times, including the Glossa Ordinaria, could explain readings in this text which previously were “claimed to derive from the otherwise lost Old Latin harmony of the Diatessaron.” (127) A hypothetical Dutch Diatessaron was not needed to explain the relationship of the Liège Diatessaron to Jakob van Maerlant’s Rijmbijbel. The old perspective “tended to ignore the medieval background of the sources they were handling” but with this publication a new area of research opened up. (128) Schmid reports on a research project between 2002-2008 looking at the medieval background and context of the manuscripts to understand the Latin gospel harmony tradition.(128-131) In connection with research on the Liège Diatessaron Tjitze Baarda found that proof texts enlisted by Daniel Plooij to demonstrate Diatessaronic readings in the Liège Diatessaron did not, in fact, support the old perspective method or interpretations. Valentine Pakis examined the type of scholarly argumentation and rhetoric in Diatessaronic studies. In 2005 he pointed out that even with Petersen there were significant methodological and rhetorical prejudices. “By modeling himself [Petersen] so painstakingly on his teacher, he brought along the latter’s prejudices: that the work of Diatessaron scholars addresses the value of the Gospels, that the subject is arcane and unapproachable to the uninitiated, and that outsiders are unfit — unequipped — to question the hypotheses of the experts.”(132) A.A. den Hollander and U. Schmidt were able to demonstrate that for Codex Fuldensis  “alleged ‘unique readings in Diatessaronic witnesses’” could be found in the Glossa Ordinaria. This undercuts the claims of a hypothetical Diatessaronic source text. (132)

The New Perspective

In his final section Schmid recalls the beginnings of the new perspective in Diatessaronic studies in the 1970s with Johannes Rathofer, Bonifatius Fischer, and Cebus C. de Bruin. Their insights faced ridicule by the established old perspective scholars, while those same old perspective scholars had to (at times) concede that these upstarts might have had a point to make. Rathofer, in particular, had a large number of examples which could not be simply shrugged off. Two serious issues came to the front:

1) it was shown that Codex Fuldensis “was influenced by a ninth-century local gospel text of the separate gospels with no connection whatsoever to the harmonized tradition. The old perspective saw the harmony tradition as “a closed shop that never took aboard material from non-harmony traditions.” But not only was cross-pollination possible, it was demonstrable.

2) it has happened that under the old perspective that errors in printed editions have been pronounced as Tatianic readings. Peterson conceded this was indeed a huge methodological flaw. But he continued to work with the same methodology.

Reaction to these insights was odd: “even if some of the parallels” are proved false, the old perspective scholars claimed the new perspective scholars were required to prove every instance false before they would concede their method and assumptions were no longer adequate to the task.(132-135)

But the new perspective “has now produced a coherent framework for studying vernacular harmonies of thirteenth to fifteenth centuries” and their relationship, if any, to Codex Fuldensis. These provide “examples that are conspicuously effective for knocking down supposed parallels between Western vernacular and Eastern Diatessaronic sources. The new perspective has also shown that the “other tradition” in the West is not by necessity a hypothesized old Latin version of the Diatessaron. Rather, it has shown that most of these supposed Diatessaronic readings are easily derived from the “Glossa Ordinaria, parallel passages, and blends of local gospel texts from the separate Gospels.” (136)

The new perspective requires that scholars actually look at the manuscripts and understand them before the data in the manuscripts can be claimed as evidence for one point or another.

The new perspective does not claim there was never an Old Latin translation of the Diatessaron, but rather that the old perspective was not methodological sound and incorrectly considered certain data as evidence where that data was better explained in a different way.

Schmid closes by outlining hopeful directions, including: focusing on Eastern data to build up understanding of those texts; focusing on the issue of harmony sequence rather than individual text readings. “[T]he study of harmony-sequence aspects could provide a new basis for an appreciation of a common underlying tradition.(138)

The chapter is followed by a three page bibliography.

Précis: Peter Williams 2014 "The Syriac Versions of the New Testament"

A Précis of
Chapter six of Ehrman, Bart and Michael Holmes, Editors, 2014 The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, Second Edition, Brill.

This volume is an updating and expansion on the first edition of 1995. The volume contains 28 articles to cover the current status of research on many basic areas in NT TC. The first 16 chapters survey the sources of the NT text available to us. The 12 chapters making up the second main part of the book focus on NTTC Theory and Method.

“Chapter Six: The Syriac Versions of the New Testament.” by Peter J. Williams, pp. 143-166

Syriac, an Eastern Aramaic dialect,  is known from inscriptions dating back to AD 6 and from pagan and secular manuscripts a little later.  “From the mid-second century onward” Christian writings appear. By the fourth century Christianity “dominated literary output.” (143) Syriac language Christianity experienced a wide expansion into “parts of Central Asia and China. Syriac influence can in fact be felt in translations of the Bible in Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic,Georgian, Middle Persian, and Sogdian.” (143)

Bible translation into Syriac dates from the second century, from the OT Hebrew with some Greek influence. “Between the Diatessaron in the second century and the Harclean in the seventh, five significant translations of major parts of the New Testament were produced.”(143)

“[S]cholars have only distinguished Syriac from other forms of Aramaic since the time of Immanuel Tremellius (1510-1580).” Therefore uses of the term Syriac in writings before his time “could well refer to a work in West or Palestinian Aramaic.”(144n2)

Earlier Syriac language translations were less literal than later translations. “Thus, while earlier translations are generally of greater textual significance, their witness is also harder to evaluate in many instances.”(144)

Williams covers the five versions: 1 The Diatessaron, 2 Old Syriac Versions, 3 The Peshitta, 4 Post-Peshitta Versions, and 5 Christian Palestinian Aramaic.

The Diatessaron of Tatian is probably the earliest. Tatian, a student of Justin Martyr, made a harmony of the Gospels (the Diatessaron “through the four”) which was cited by mainly Syriac Church Fathers. Whether Tatian did this work in Greek or Syriac is unknown. No known text of the Diatessaron as a work survives to us. Tatian’s version was in use widely in the East during the fourth century. Theodoret of Cyrrhus (bishop 423-457) worked to replace over two hundred copies of the Diatessaron with books of the individual Gospels. (144) The main source for the Diatessaron is Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron (Syriac and Armenian). In the West there were other harmonies leaving the influence of the Diatessaron in the West up to debate. Williams argues that the witnesses to the Diatessaron should be handled as Patristic evidence.

The Old Syriac Versions of the Gospels are known from two manuscripts 1) the Curetonian Syriac (syr^c) and 2) the Codex Sinaiticus (syr^s) or Sinai Syr. 30 (a late-fourth or early-fifth century palimpsest). Both these are earlier than the Peshitta. “Scholars now generally agree that this version arose after the Diatessaron,” though there are a few who believe it was prior to Tatian, and also a theory that these versions arose contemporaneously but independently.(146) Some scholars argue these translations show evidence that they underwent revision. One category of data used in evidence of this revision is the alternation between the name ܺܝܫܽܘܥ Jesus and the title ܡܳܪܰܢ  Our Lord. The Sinaitic Ms ends the Gospel of Mark at 6:8, while the Curetonian lacks all of Mark except 16:17-20! The Old Syriac text does not fit neatly into the categories of witnesses advanced in TC through Wescott and Hort. “Since writers prior to the making of the Peshitta were clearly familiar with Acts and Paul in Syriac, their citations and allusions are often deemed to bear witness to an Old Syriac version of Acts and Paul” (148) Lack of a Syriac text for comparison makes evaluating the quotations of Ephrem (in Armenian) and others difficult. Williams writes against “defining everything that disagrees with the Peshitta and subsequent translations as Old Syriac.”(149f)

The Peshitta translation is believed to have originated in the late-fourth to early-fifth century. This was the Bible for “all branches of Syriac-speaking Christianity.”(150) Contents same as Western Canon but without 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude or Revelation. Previous thought was that Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (411-435) was “responsible for this translation.”(150) A sixth or seventh century Life of Rabbula credits him with “a translation of the New Testament from Greek into Syriac.”(150) More recent scholarship gives evidence that the Peshitta is earlier than Rabbula and that the Old Syriac was used long after the Peshitta was introduced. As a translation the Peshitta “is not completely uniform.” Translations of particular words and phrases are not consistent from one book to another. The current “standard edition of the Gospels is that of Pusey and Gwilliam.” But “their edition … fails to present many variants.” (150) “The edition may therefore give an impression of greater uniformity in the transmission of the Peshitta than is truly justified.” Williams describes the current critical editions and value to NTTC.

Post-Peshitta Versions include the Harclean and the Piloxenian. Of the two, Williams states the Harclean is more valuable to NTTC. Williams outlines the origins of these two versions, one from Piloxenus, bishop of Mabbug, completed in 507/508. The other from Thomas of Harkel bishop of Mabbug, completed in the early-seventh century. “The Harklean version is a revision of the Piloxenian containing all twenty-seven New Testament books and marks the zenith of literalism in Syriac representation of Greek.”(154) This version has been particularly valuable in demonstrating the antiquity of the readings behind some Greek minuscule manuscripts from the eleventh century or later. (155)

The Christian Palestinian Aramaic version, (a.k.a.: Palestinian Syriac, or Syro-Palestinian version) may date from the fifth century. The “earliest extant manuscripts come from the sixth century.” (155) This version was used by the Melkites in Palestine and Transjordan. It is based on a Greek original. Further study of this version is needed with respect to many issues.

After describing these versions, Williams gives two practical examples using the Syriac versions in NTTC.

Examples:

The author’s first set of example deals with the data of the Old Syriac and the Peshitta. It is critical that “we have adequate knowledge of the text,” and “that we understand its method of translation, consistency of translation, and extent of revision.” Too often textual critics “allow preconceived notions rather than systematic study to establish equivalents between Greek and Syriac.”(156) Williams then gives examples of issues concerning translational equivalents. His first example is brief, the relationship betweenܥܢܐ and ἀποκρίνομαι. William’s second example is more detailed concerning the words for “people” ܥܰܡܳܐ, ἔθνος, λαός, ὄχλος; and the kinds of considerations needed to be able to make claims based on actual data.

Williams concludes with an example relating to the Harclean version. The Harclean version is intentional in its degree of formal correspondence between Greek and Syriac. But no person or group of translators can be completely consistent across such a work with equivalences. This raises the issue of whether the non-consistent variants are inconsistent due to intent or accident. Williams discusses briefly how conclusions might be reached on this type of issue.

The chapter is followed by a six page bibliography.

Précis: Carroll Osburn 2014 "The Greek Lectionaries of the New Testament."

A Précis of
Chapter four of Ehrman, Bart and Michael Holmes, Editors, 2014 The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, Second Edition, Brill.

This volume is an updating and expansion on the first edition of 1995. The volume contains 28 articles to cover the current status of research on many basic areas in NT TC. The first 16 chapters survey the sources of the NT text available to us. The 12 chapters making up the second main part of the book focus on NTTC Theory and Method.

“Chapter Four: The Greek Lectionaries of the New Testament.” by Carroll Osburn, pp. 93-113

Osburn briefly introduces basic issues surrounding the data of the Greek Lectionaries. The inclusion of Greek Lectionaries “in the critical apparatuses of various editions of the Greek Testament” has been sporadic. The evidence this body of literature presents is “seriously neglected.” Earlier scholarship incorrectly assumed these texts “must preserve the earliest form of the NT text” on the assumption that liturgical tradition would keep the texts more pristine. More recently there is a common assumption that because the texts are later they must preserve TR readings, rendering them “of little value in the text-critical enterprise.” But the interrelationships of the NT text with the Lectionaries is more complex than these assumptions.

In the first division of his chapter Osburn describes the structure, use, and basic terminology of Greek Lectionaries. Here he also describes theories and evidence of their development, their historical and regional diversity, and relationship to theory about the establishment of the NT canon. Osburn highlights the lectionaries from Jerusalem, Byzantium, and Egypt. More study also needs to be done with respect to their relationship to patristic testimony.

Osburn’s second division is a more detailed historical presentation on how the Greek Lectionaries have been incorporated and used by various scholars in critical editions of the Greek New Testament. John Mill’s 1707 was the first to integrate Greek lectionary MSS. He used eight in preparation of his New Testament. The number of included lectionaries grew with the editions of Johann Wettstein(mid-1700s) and Johann Greisbach (late 1700s to early 1800s). In the 1830s Johann Scholz included one hundred seventy-eight gospel lectionaries and fifty-eight apostolos. In the mid-1800s Karl Lachmann’s scholarship changed the direction of TC away from the TR. He and scholars after him largely abandoned the use of lectionaries. This trend remains and influenced the choice of textual resources up to UBSGNT4. However, the Antoniades Patriarchal Edition of 1904, though arbitrary in its use of lectionaries, helped (along with Scrivener’s 1894 A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament) to raise interest and awareness of the lectionaries in NT textual history. In the 1930s Ernest Colwell helped initiate the Chicago Lectionary Project. Osburn relates significant results and problems with this project. In the late 20th century study of the lectionaries became relevant to the Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior. Newer research and analyses of lectionaries has led to a more systematic understanding of the development and propagation of lectionaries. The newer view is that lectionaries tended to develop after the 4th cent to 7th cent rather than developing in the 2nd cent as previously thought.

In the third part of his chapter Osburn presents how the text of the Greek lectionaries is handled in current scholarship. First, he outlines the approach of the International Greek New Testament Project for incorporating lectionary data. After this he presents the approach of the Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior. His discussion touches upon what is and is not included of the lectionaries in each case and why. He also briefly describes the apparatus of each of these editions.

Osburn closes with six conclusions about the status of lectionary studies in New Testament Textual Criticism.

Précis: Nadav Naʾaman 2011 “The Shephelah according to the Amarna Letters.”

Nadav Naʾaman 2011 “The Shephelah according to the Amarna Letters.”

pp. 281-299 in I. Finkelstein and N. Na'aman (eds.), The Fire Signals of Lachish. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin, Winona Lake 2011, 281-299.
available at 
 https://www.academia.edu/12995776/The_Shephelah_According_to_the_Amarna_Letters_in_I._Finkelstein_and_N._Naaman_eds._The_Fire_Signals_of_Lachish._Studies_in_the_Archaeology_and_History_of_Israel_in_the_Late_Bronze_Age_Iron_Age_and_Persian_Period_in_Honor_of_David_Ussishkin_Winona_Lake_2011_281-299 

or http://mail.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/Naaman.pdf
 
This article is important with respect to the relationship of archaeology and the claims made about the past based on archaeology over against what can be learned from textual evidence.

Nadav Na’aman is Professor of Jewish History, Emeritus of Tel Aviv University, where he served from 1975 to 2007. He is a renowned authority on the Amarna Letters with long experience in Archaeology, the Ancient Near East, and the history of the Amarna Period, and other topics.

His CV is available at https://english.tau.ac.il/profile/nnaaman

In 1887 the first 358 tablets of the Amarna Letters were discovered in Amarna, Egypt. Another 24 tablets were recovered later in the 20th century. The tablets are written in Akkadian cuneiform and consist mostly of diplomatic correspondence between Egypt and its subject kings in Canaan and Amarru. The correspondence covers about 30 years during the XVIIIth Egyptian Dynasty, starting in the last few years of Amenhotep III’s life. This period is now thought to start just before 1350 B.C. and extend down to the 1320s, though there are enough perplexities in Egyptian chronology which could argue for as much as 30 years earlier for the beginning of this period.

Précis by Joseph Abrahamson

Na’aman’s article presents a test case concerning the intersection of archaeology and documentary history through the examination of the political, geographical, and personal references in a small set of letters from the Amarna tablets which deal with a rebellion in the Shephelah called the Qiltu Affair. This grouping of letters is called the Shephelah correspondence.

In “Egyptian sources of the New Kingdom” the Shephelah is strikingly absent, except for the city of Gezer. “The Shephelah is also absent from all other Egyptian topographical lists that enumerate the cities in the Land of Canaan...and from Papyrus Anastasi I which describes various regions and towns in Canaan…” And the envoy list of “Amenophis II’s 18th year lists the envoy of Lachish apart from” other envoys. This lack of mention is “remarkable when it is compared with other districts in Canaan.” “[T]he Shephelah … is the least mentioned region among the districts of Canaan. [This absence] calls for an explanation.”

Na’aman’s procedure is to 1) the textual evidence concerning the features of the City-States in the Shephelah as recorded in the Amarna Letters, 2) the archaeological evidence for those cities/city states during the period of the letters; 3) “examine in detail the documentary evidence for the Shephelah in the 14th century B.C.E.” And 4) draw “an overall picture of the Shephelah in light of the documentary and archaeological evidence.”

For the first section Na’aman delineates the selection of which Amarna Letters are relevant giving explanation to the features with respect to authorship and location. He cautions that one must realize that this corpus represents only a fraction of the number of letters which would actually have been written. From these criteria he discusses how he intends to make only the most clear and empirical description of probable city-states and rulers in the Shephelah from these documents. This section contains detailed explanation of the preservation of the particular tablets, their content, and the weight of any relevant reconstructions in the texts. His result is that along with “Gezer, Gath, and Lachish…[i]t is clear that about six/seven different city-states existed in the time of the Amarna archive, and that large mounds, such as Tell !Aitun and Tell Beit Mirsim, might have been the seats of city-states’ rulers…” In addition “each of the identified city-states stood near one of the main rivers of the Shephelah.” Which may mean “that the territories of the city-states stretched along the main rivers and their tributaries, each dominating a number of villages and hamlets in its district.”

In his second section Na’aman investigates the archaeological evidence for the Shephelah in this period. But his results poze a puzzle. He explained some typical assumptions about what an archaeologist might expect to find with respect to governing centers. He asks; “Can archaeological research produce evidence for differentiating the centers of city-states from secondary towns in their territories?” “Upon reading the seven letters sent from Jerusalem, scholars would expect the excavations to reveal a medium-sized, thriving city in the Late Bronze Age, but these expectations were totally dashed.” There is a huge discrepancy which he believes can be explained “by the state of preservation of the settlement strata from the Amarna period.” Similarly with the archaeological record at Gezer Na’aman states: “If our knowledge of the place were based entirely on the archaeological findings, we would have concluded that Gezer was, at most, an unimportant city-state, and no one would have thought that it was one of the leading city-states in the array of Canaanite city-states during the Amarna period.” Regarding Lachish he writes: “We may state with certainty that, without the historical documentation, scholars would have assumed that Late Bronze Lachish became an important city-state only in the 13th century” after the Amarna period.

His conclusion to this section is that archaeology is inherently unreliable without textual evidence. “[W]ith regard to the cities’ political status and strength vis-à’vis their neighbors, especially in periods of decline, archaeology is severely limited. We may conclude that the number of Canaanite city-states in the Shephelah should be established on the basis of the documentary evidence alone, whereas archaeology, useful as it is in many aspects of the urban and material culture, cannot supply concrete data for the investigation.”

For the third section Na’aman focuses a “prominent feature in the ‘Shephelah correspondence.’” These are the problems of rebellion and political and social unrest reported in the letters. These features “require elucidation.” He focuses on one particular event called the “Qiltu affair” to demonstrate how significantly careful study of the textual evidence fills in our information about the events of this region which are invisible to archaeology. This section contains careful analysis of the relevant Amarna letters which speak of this event. Na’aman also draws a political parallel with similar events of 1 Samuel 23:1-13 during Saul’s reign.

In Na’aman’s fourth section he analyzes the record of “rebellions in the Shephelah in the Late Amarna Period.” This section also contains careful analysis of relevant Amarna Letters “in order to establish the identity of the social groups that operated in the related events.” Several letters are scrutinized, and Na’aman draws a relatively clear historical but tentative reconstruction of these rebellions and their causes.

In his conclusion, Na’aman points out that there “is a marked contast between the Egyptian inscriptions, which entirely ignore the Shephelah region (except for Gezer) and mention only toponyms located outside its area, and the Amarna letters, which show that the Shephelah played an important part in the Egyptian administration of Canaan.” Na’aman highlights some of the main insights given by the Amarna letters. “The archaeological excavations and surveys supply important data that is not illuminated by the documentary evidence.” And the archaeological evidence must be used in light of the textual evidence. And the Egyptian topographical lists from the time period need to be reevaluated with respect to both their purpose and meaning rather than concluding that they would mention issues based on the expectations of historians or archaeologists.

Précis: Mazza, Roberta 2005 “Dalla Bruma ai Brumalia. Modelli di cristianizzazione tra Roma e Costantinopoli.”

A Précis of:

Mazza, Roberta

2005 “Dalla Bruma ai Brumalia. Modelli di cristianizzazione tra Roma e Costantinopoli.” in A. Saggioro (ed.), Diritto Romano e identità cristiana. Definizioni storico-religiose e confronti interdisciplinari. Carocci Editore, Rome, pp. 161-171. https://www.academia.edu/30570609/_Dalla_Bruma_ai_Brumalia._Modelli_di_cristianizzazione_tra_Roma_e_Costantinopoli_in_A._Saggioro_ed._Diritto_Romano_e_identit%C3%A0_cristiana._Definizioni_storico-religiose_e_confronti_interdisciplinari_Carocci_Rome_2005_161-71

Roberta Mazza is Lecturer in Graeco-Roman Material Culture at Department of Classics and Ancient History, University of Manchester, England. Her interest are Graeco-Roman Egypt, focusing on the Byzantine period, and the rise and spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire. She is a Research Fellow of the John Rylands Research Institute and Academic Honorary Curator of Graeco-Roman Egypt at the Manchester Museum. She has done extensive research and publication of Christian Papyri and Egyptian artefacts.

[Based on her web page http://robertamazza.com/ and the University of Manchester website https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/researchers/roberta-mazza(46a1cfa5-019f-4372-a1b3-496c47ba2c48)/publications.html ]

Précis by Joseph Abrahamson.

I took up this article because it discusses aspects of Brumalia and its relationship to the development of the liturgical calendar in late antiquity. The article is in part a response to Marguerite Harl’s 1981 “La dénonciation des festivités profanes dans le discours épiscopal et monastique, en Orient chrétien, à la fin du IVe siècl,e” and uses John Crawford’s 1919 “De Bruma et Brumalibus Festis.”

“From Bruma to Brumalia. Models of Christianity between Rome and Constantinople.”

1. Introduction

Mazza begins with noting the the work of M. Harl’s 1981 paper where the latter scholar noted the purpose of the Eastern Church Fathers in the late 4th century was “not so much the suppression of feasts as their limitation and purification.” (p. 161) For Harl this reflected the difficulties the Church faced in imposing a Christian festival calendar. Harl enumerated three kinds of festivals: Christian, Jewish, and Greek. But she did not elaborate on the Jewish festivals. Harl focused on the how the Fathers were leading the Christians to come to terms with the Greek festivals which permeated the culture around them. These pagan festivals were not merely rituals, but were complex expressions of social relationships, power relations, economic functions, and so forth. The term “profane” sums up all features of those feasts that cannot be done by Christians in their strictly religious character.

Mazza will focus on the historical development of Bruma, or Brumalia, a feast of gentile origin, and its development from late antiquity to the 10th century. The christianization of the calendar was a long, drawn-out process. The strategy of using Imperial political authority to shape the calendar appears to be more successful than the parallel condemnations of at least part of the Church.

2. The first attestation of the feast of Bruma/Brumalia

In the 10th chapter of De Idolatria Tertullian urges Christians against becoming school teachers because they might receive gifts contaminated by idolatry. One of the gifts Tertullian specifically mentions are Brumae honorariums. He mentions Bruma a second time as one of several examples of festivals from which he urges Christians to abstain.

Tertullian considered participation in Saturnalia, Ianuaria, Brumae and Matronalia as particularly grave offenses. The people he addresses were not particularly burdened with a heritage of Jewish festival practices, but the gentile pagan practices were very much a part of their cultural heritage. Tertullian works to create a distinct division between the Christian and the Gentile-pagan social practices through teaching. The idea was to prevent social mixing of pagan traditions with Christian ideology.

Neither Tertullian nor the reference in Martial indicate a particular date, only the common tradition of exchanging gifts. In other Latin literature the term Bruma indicates the shortest day of the year, winter, or the winter dark. But Martial’s reference of Bruma in relation to the festival of Saturn could imply that Bruma might even be the beginning of winter. Three later documents identify Bruma with November 24th. These identifications of date are found in the Calendar of 354, Laterculus Polemii Silvii [a 5th century list of Roman emperors and provinces], and twice in the 10th century Geoponica compiled for  Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. This last work indicates uncertainty in the 10th century about the precise date of Bruma.

Crawford in his 1919 “De Bruma et Brumalibus Festis” argued that the date of November 24 is an anticipatory celebration of the winter solstice. Crawford bases his argument on the calendar of Claudius Tuscus which John the Lydian translated into Greek from Latin in his De Ostentis. This calendar identifies the winter solstice by its similarities to November 24-the day to which the term Bruma is attached.

A 14th century Byzantine Codex from the Bodleian Library contains excerpts of 11th century monk/historian Michael Psellos. S. Weinstock in 1948 proposed an identification with the Greek word for “sunset” found on November 22 in this document with the beginning of winter. While there is no note of “sunrise” in this calendar, Weinstock proposed a connection between the dates and the Helios-Kronos myths, so that the Calendar of 354’s use of N. Invicti on December 25 be interpreted as the “birth of the sun.” He then listed anniversaries noted in Roman and Byzantine literature which corresponded to these two dates.

Thus what can be stated about Bruma is that it is a festival of late antiquity; the name is associated with November 24, the beginning of the darkest season, celebrated in a similar way to that of the festivals of Kronos, ended with the festival of Saturnalia and the winter solstice; connected with Sol Invictus.

[Note: It should be emphasized that the era in which Bruma/Brumalia developed is late antiquity, well after the Christian church associated Christmas with December 25th. Even so,  I believe there are too many associative leaps made here. I do not think the data actually suggest or support the strong associations made by Weinstock. Nor do I believe that Mazza’s summary here has been successfully argued. I think there is too much emphasis on the parallels selected by Crawford and Weinstock rather than a comprehensive look at the actual data surrounding Bruma/Brumalia-Joe]

3. Brumalia in Justinian Age [A.D 518-602]

“The reference to chthonic cults is made in De Mensibus (158) of John the Lydian during the age of Justinian, when the evidence regarding the celebration are more frequent:” (p. 165) Mazza cites a longer passage from De Mensibus where John is reflecting upon the historic past to explain certain festival behaviors associated with Brumalia that he states are apparent in his day. [Note: some 500 years later].

“The impression derived from the passage in question is that the author, in line with his antiquarian taste and the spirit of his age, proceeded to systematize a diverse matrix of rites within the chronological scheme proposed for his 'Work on the Months.’ It is also clear that late-age progressive secularization of Gothic holidays had to cause a slow loss of meaning and memory of the origins of such rites and related myths, which explains confusion and overlaps” that we see in John the Lydian. (p. 166)

For Mazza the most interesting point in the passage is the “celebrating by name”. That is, the festival is now called by a name: Brumalia.  “This kind of reform of the Brumalia, as we shall see, was in all probability introduced or at least encouraged by Justinian, in an attempt to exhort and neutralize all those recurring events listed above, which according to Lido constituted the true essence of the festival, linked to ancient cultures 'infernal demons', so many and so true that the Church rejected such celebrations.” This “celebrating by name” is attested in the Histories of Agathias of Smyrna regarding the December 577 earthquake in Constantinople and a contemporary anonymous epigram. (p. 166)

Mazza has now argued that the generic and somewhat arbitrarily gathered festivities listed by John the Lydian were given the name ‘Brumalia’ in the 6th century because of a recently established practice of giving a name to festivities that occur during a particular span of time. John Malalas’ contemporary or recently prior Chronographia (bk. 7) shows a sort-of nationalistic interest in creating an etiology for the festival of Brumalia grounding it in the struggle of Romulus and Remus at the foundation of Rome. Malalas describes both an imperial setting for the promulgation of Brumalia and an alphabetical naming custom for the celebration. The etiology ties together the shortening of the day, the winter, and the seasonal cessation of military activities. Similar etiologies can be found in 6th century authors like George Choiroboskos.

[Note: the dating of George Choiroboskos is contested, some now believe he flourished in the 9th century. But even with this author’s dates in question the works of Malalas and Choricius of Gaza are enough to demonstrate the historical patterns Mazza points out.-Joe]

“A written oration on the Brumalia of the Emperor Justinian by Choricius of Gaza [late 5th century to early 6th] confirms the importance of recurrence and re-reflects all the elements emerging from literary works to date.”(p. 168) It also demonstrates the geographic dispersion of the festival. The oration contains the same alphabetic naming elements connected with Brumalia as well as the focus on its nationalistic importance and the seasonal cessation of military activities. Choricius’ oration on Brumalia is completely without reference to the Church or Christian religious topics. It is an imperial oration giving great space to political themes. In the Justinian era the civic estate and the ecclesiastical state are transforming the calendar to their own distinct purposes, but neither has exclusive or overwhelming power in that transformation.

A papyrus from Oxyrhynchus (xxvii, 2480, 37-40) dating from A.D. 565-566 demonstrates the reach of influence of the Justinian court to Egypt where Brumalia is listed as the occasion/date and greeting on a list of goods and services. This “testimony is very interesting because it reiterates the real plan of celebration and confirms what is found in the literary sources analyzed above,” including the suspension of military activity. (p. 169)

Most of the evidence we have is of the secular/civil festival as it took place in official contexts, though for the festival to recur it would need a level of popular acceptance. The more ‘conservative’ traditions mentioned by John the Lydian which were revived came perhaps from the common people. There is in the Corinthian Museum a  4th to 6th century funerary inscription of a Christian priest that testifies to the festival.

Mazza believes the evidence converges in a way that suggest the celebration by name of Brumalia was new to John the Lydian and built out of features from different cultic practices, given impetus or promoted by Justinian. (p. 170) Mazza identifies two possible aims for imperial intervention: in alliance with the Church one goal is the neutralization of paganism and its practices, and the strengthening of the ceremonial court with public and popular ritual, games, and festivities. Mazza gives examples from the life of Justinian which are directed at these aims. Justinian had to manage the tension between honoring the principles of Christianity and the pagan cultural heritage of the vast imperial culture. The traditions of the greater pagan cultural festivals would be especially ingrained, difficult to eradicate.  Repression of the pagan practices had been mandated and attempted on occasion, but some particular traditions were particularly significant to the civil public office. On other occasions after abolishing pagan practice the architecture was allowed to remain, but set apart for Christian use. In the East the limits upon civic authority and religious authority as well as the tension between them inhibited either estate from simple change by fiat either singly or as a united front.

4 The Endurance of the Festival beyond Late Antiquity

That the festival named Brumalia endured into the 7th and 8th centuries is shown in the explicit condemnation by the Council in Trullo cannon 62 (Quinisext held at Constantinople under Justinian II A.D. 691-2) and by a Synod of Rome under Pope Zachary in A.D. 743. At Constantinople a festival called Brumalia still existed in the 10th century, features of which are recorded in De Cerimoniis (bk 2, ch 18) which records observations that at this time the festival took place over two days and was of significant value to the throne. It involved explicitly Christian liturgical features and non-ecclesiastical traditions (e.g., singing, dancing, dining, processions, gift giving, candles and torch lighting). These last elements, Mazza, asserts had gone through a long period of secularization from their original gentile roots and are obvious evidence of pagan influence and symbolic or evocative of the winter solstice.

[Note: everybody had to use candles and torches during this time of year, even if they were not pagan. Sometimes a candle is a candle. Similarly the other elements are not of necessity uniquely non-Christian.-Joe]

Mazza closes with a final quotation and comment to show that Brumalia was understood in the 10th century not primarily as a religious issue but rather as an issue of Roman imperial identity strengthened by traditions surrounding its heritage from the founding of Rome.

Précis: Harl, Marguerite 1981 “La dénonciation des festivités profanes dans le discours épiscopal et monastique, en Orient chrétien, à la fin du IVe siècle”

A Précis of:

Harl, Marguerite

1981 “La dénonciation des festivités profanes dans le discours épiscopal et monastique, en Orient chrétien, à la fin du IVe siècle” D'Alexandrie hellénistique à la mission de Besançon Annales littéraires de l'Université de Besançon  Année 1981  Volume 262  Numéro 1  pp. 123-147 http://www.persee.fr/doc/ista_0000-0000_1981_ant_262_1_1047

Marguerite Harl was professor of post-classical Greek language and literature at the Sorbonne (Paris-IV) from 1960 to 1986. She established a course on Christian writers (the "Greek Fathers") of Late antiquity. She founded the Editions du Cerf  collection La Bible d’Alexandrie, a commentary translation of the books of the Septuagint, of which she published the first volume, Genèse, in 1986. She has also published research on Philo of Alexandria, and early patristic writers Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

[bio notes from https://www.lesbelleslettres.com/contributeur/marguerite-harl ]

Précis by Joseph Abrahamson.

I took up this article because I saw it cited in works related to my research on Christian holy days and in my research in New Testament Textual Criticism.  The author generally gives quotation of the Patristic sources in endnotes, but there are several points which seem to me to be overly general and somewhat coerced into her thesis.

“The Denunciation of Profane Festivals in the Episcopal and Monastic Discourse of Eastern Christianity at the End of the 4th Century.”

Harl explains that her study is not on the theological significance or spiritual interpretation of the feasts. Rather, she is interested in the motive for the prodigious denunciations of secular festivities which seem deliberately confused with pagan religious feasts. The denouncements of the Christians focus on corporate expressions of joy, so then what is left to the Christian for expressions of joy in Christian feasts or for Christians celebration of secular festivals? The Christian writers use negative examples from these feasts to teach concerning proper Christian celebration of feasts. Their writings provide evidence of how they defined a unique Christian identity separate from the world in which they lived.

The data Harl selected comes from what she describes as “festival speeches” found in the Eastern Church dating from the last thirty years of the 4th century. The speeches are selected from those which focus on the annual liturgical feasts of the Christian Church: Christmas, Easter, Pentecost; or else on the commemorations of particular notable saints. The authors are notable leaders: Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom; preaching in the cities of Cappadocia, Constantinople, or Antioch; who were experienced with monastic life. These writers show evidence of a topos (a literary structure consistent in rhetorical form) beginning with highlighting the Christian festival, the reason for observing the feast, and developing a point of doctrine to teach. Then the authors would move into the use of negative examples from pagan and secular feasts.

Part I: “The Praise of the Christian Festival”

After the brief introduction Harl presents a short discussion to highlight how these Fathers taught the appropriate use of the Christian feast to occupy the time and space of the church year as a model for the Christian occupying the time and space of the world. The Christian feast day as a “day” looks back to the work of Christ as the Savior-God-- particularly focusing on the “day” of Resurrection, teaches and enables the Christian to live in the world “today”, and builds the Christian to look forward to “the day to come” of Christ’s return.

The Christian feast is described as being for the faithful. The preachers emphasize diversity of the nations and social stations out of which the faithful have been called to be one unified body in Christ. The preeminent focus is the joy of the believer as a gift from God which celebrates the victory won by Christ’s resurrection, given to the believer in this world, and which will be fully realized at the Second Coming. The seasons of fasting and repentance stand in contrast to the feast day and enable the believer to appreciate the contrast of life in this world v. life in Christ. Regular occupations are to be put aside, but the day is not for “doing nothing.” The Christian is to be occupied the entire festival day with the liturgy, hymns, praise, thanksgiving and especially being taught God’s Word. [Harl does not particularly note this, but the liturgy would be a celebration of the Sacrament of the Altar]. The spaces for the festival are the interiors of churches or tombs of the saints, adorned with lights (lamps or candles), and other decorations. Christians are to dress festively in their finery. All of these aspects contribute to the brilliance of the festival. Christians are directed not only to joy but acts of joy, the exchanging of greetings, letters, gifts, acts of charity all as demonstrations of fraternal love, including the emancipation of slaves. The preacher emphasizes that the feast celebrated on this day is a foretaste of the marriage feast of the Lamb on “the day to come.”

Part II: “The Blame of Other Festivals”

After this survey of positive exhortations Harl turns to her focus on the denunciations. Previous discussions have concluded that the denunciation of other festivals was a rhetorical device used to highlight by contrast to enhance the praise of the brighter Christian festival. Harl believes the rhetorical approach neglects a proper understanding of the ideological function of the text. “I take these passages seriously, considering that they have an ideological and not just a rhetorical function in the text. From them I try to measure the efforts made by the episcopal discourse, in agreement with other official documents of the Church, in order to fight among the Christians the temptation of excessive profane festivities. My hypothesis is that the literary topos also has the value of argumentation and that it aims at a reality.”(p. 126, italics original)

The list of negatives is strongly patterned and build revulsion by each element.

The shortest form couples refusal to celebrate the “Jewish” with refusal to celebrate the “Greek” festivals. This double refusal parallels the Council of Nicea’s formula against Sabellianism and Arianism. “But the double refusal of the Jewish festivals and the Greek feasts also corresponds to a reality: Christians are tempted to participate in real festivals that take place in their cities: Jewish feasts, feasts of the Greeks. This is forbidden to them, since they must celebrate their own festivals, according to their own calendar, without confusion.” (p. 127) [Note: I would suggest that these formulae echo Leviticus 18:3 “After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.”]

The second form of denunciation, also brief but four-fold, is based on Romans 11:13-14, placing the festival day in an eschatological context looking to the “day of days.” The Pauline list is "orgy and drinking, lying and debauchery." None of these are appropriate for a Christian feast. “By excluding Christian behavior from what they attribute to the licentious processions of Greek festivals, preachers actually aim for a reality that they know in their own community: Christians were drunk on the eve of Lent and at the end of Lent, for Easter. Several Easter sermons bear the double title: ‘for Easter and against drunkenness’.“ (p. 128)

“The longest form of denunciation can be read in the Discourses of Gregory of Nazianzen. The earliest text appears in the second Discourse against the Emperor Julian, which dates from 364.” (p. 128) This contains a list of eight features non-Church festivals with prohibitions but balanced by positive substitutions. “The rhetoric of negation and substitution gives a picture of what Christians must refuse: festivities in order of the body (embellishment, food, perfumes, music ...) must be replaced by corresponding acts in the order of the mind, or regulated by temperance. ‘You dance too, because you love festivals and festivities, do it; but do not imitate the indecent dance of Herodias' daughter. . . , imitates that of David after the deposit of the ark ... ‘" (p. 128)

The other long form is a big text from Gregory of Nazianzen is from his  Christmas Sermon of 380 at Constantinople. It parallels the Discourse against Julian but includes twenty-two negations. The preacher addresses concern that the Greek ways appeal to the senses, to the belly, to social acceptance, to personal vanity; while some involve direct violations of God’s command: drunkenness, orgies, etc. The ultimate danger is falling into idolatry by setting aside Christian cultural distinctives in the celebration of Christian festivals.

Harl considers this literary topos successful. This literary form of denunciation is found in three other festival addresses. These are  Paschal homilies of insecure attribution: the most complete is from Astrius the Sophist and combines the Pauline formula with the double refusal; another is attributed to John Chrysostom, the third, later, is from Leonce of Constantinople.

Harl turns to making some general observations apart from the local features of the festivals and the rhetorical form.

First: Secular festivals must be purified. She observes four consistent points across the denunciations.

1. The Christian festival must be that of the mind and the heart, rather than that of the bodies;
2. it must observe the measure by eliminating all excesses;
3. it must preserve the diurnal character by expelling all the vices of the night-life;
4. it must take place in an interior space (family and church) without deploying in the streets and public squares.

Second: The manner in which the festivities of the body, the excesses, etc., are denounced, is notable because the preachers hardly ever give a religious motivation to these condemnations. Their denunciations parallel the pagan Greek Moralists. There are some brief religious arguments, but the main point of condemning secular festivities is “as gross revels in the areas of drinking, eating, laughing, dancing, sexuality, etc. It is the sensual and licentious atmosphere of pagan ceremonies which is denounced.”(p. 130) Harl sees the preacher as desiring to bring out a contrast “to show the moral progress that Christianity brings to humanity.” (p. 131)

Third: “The will of the preachers is not to suppress the secular festivities but to limit them and above all to purify them.” Harl’s idea is that “to limit” means to discourage Christians from the excesses of a secular festival that are contrary to a proper celebration of a Christian festival. “The preachers know that the faithful need, especially after the periods of fasting and penance, these moments of ‘relaxation’, of collective joy. They do not want to suppress the manifestations of joy, but they recommend mastery, limitation, transformation as well.” (p. 131)

And Fourth: “The most important information that these warnings give us is that the preachers consider it useful to do so: they attest to the real competition that the pagan festivals still held at Christian festivals, as also the official documents of the Church.” (p. 132) Harl then turns to a brief examination of these Church documents.

The Synod of Ancrya (A.D. 314) and the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364-5) prohibit Christians from (e.g.):

1. Using the feasting places proper to the pagans,
2. Celebrating pagan festivals with them the pagans,
3. Banking with pagans.
4. Observing the Jewish Sabbath laws.
5. Celebrating Jewish feasts.
6. Accepting gifts given by Jews which come from Jewish feasts.

Similar prohibitions are found in the Apostolic Constitutions (A.D. 370-85) and the Theodosian Code (A.D. 438). These were enacted with the force of law suppressing pagan festivities and setting Christian feasts apart with special protections.

Harl notes that these denunciations of pagan practices were for the renunciation of sin, but she asserts that these denunciations are better explained by the preachers’ higher social status as monastics. Concerning this assertion she makes three points.

One: The Church in the baptismal formula sets out a “principle of exclusion” renouncing Satan and his works and ways. Harl generalizes on the actual baptismal ritual asserting it was symbolical of protecting the five senses of the baptized. These five senses are paralleled in the denunciations of pagan festivals. The monastic ideal emphasizes this baptismal “principle of exclusion.” The main writers Harl surveyed are monastics. Generalizing a bit again she writes “Monastic literature makes known anecdotes and apophthegms which similarly condemn festivals.”(p. 135)

“These monastic texts invite us to distinguish two opposite attitudes towards festivals: that of the Christian people of the cities and that of the anchorites [those who withdrew from society]. The preaching of the bishops tends to bring into the urban Christian crowd an echo of the ascetic virtues of the monks. But there is an important discrepancy between these two environments, between the extreme rigorism of some and the taste for pleasure of others.”(p. 135)

Two: The rigor of the preachers is also explained by their duty in office. Harl asserts that this duty is complemented by the social status these men held. These bishops were aristocrats who would naturally disdain public excess of the masses. “They were chosen as bishops because they came from noble, rich families, that they were cultivated and trained in the technique of speech.” “Their concern to define the Christian festival in contrast with the pagan festivals, or at least with the immorality of the profane rejoicings, is the concern to ensure the Christian community in its moral identity and to carry on with it a work of education: they concede détente, provided that the excesses are restrained. Measure, self-control, temperance remain the rules.”(p. 135)

Three: The image of the Christian festival they seek to impose is a purified prefigurement of the Celestial Feast at the consummation of the age. “The long Greek ascetic tradition advocating the mastered body is evidently taken up in Christian preaching: it also evokes the body denied by monastic asceticism and the sublimated body: the angelic body promised to the hope of eschatology, of incorporeal, purely "spiritual" festivals.” (p. 136)