The ''Belly-Myther'' of Endor: Interpretations of 1 Kingdoms 28 in the Early Church (Writings from the Greco-Roman World)

348 Pages·2007·0.21 MB·English

by  Rowan

THE “BELLY-MYTHER” OF ENDOR
Society of Biblical Literature
Writings from the Greco-Roman World
JohnT.Fitzgerald,GeneralEditor
Editorial Board
DavidArmstrong
ElizabethAsmis
BrianE.Daley,S.J.
DavidG.Hunter
DavidKonstan
WendyMayer
MargaretM.Mitchell
MichaelJ.Roberts
JohanC.Thom
JamesC.VanderKam
Number16
THE“BELLY-MYTHER”OFENDOR
Interpretationsof1Kingdoms28intheEarlyChurch
VolumeEditor
AbrahamJ.Malherbe
The “Belly-Myther”
of Endor
1 28
Interpretations of Kingdoms
in the Early Church
TranslatedwithanIntroductionandNotesby
Rowan A. Greer
and
Margaret M. Mitchell
SocietyofBiblicalLiterature
Atlanta
THE“BELLY-MYTHER”OFENDOR
Interpretationsof1Kingdoms28intheEarlyChurch
Copyright©2007bytheSocietyofBiblicalLiterature.
Allrightsreserved.
Nopartofthisworkmaybereproducedortransmittedinanyformorbyany
means,electronicormechanical,includingphotocopyingandrecording,orby
means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be ex-
presslypermittedbythe1976CopyrightActorinwritingfromthepublisher.
RequestsforpermissionshouldbeaddressedinwritingtotheRightsandPer-
missionsDepartment,SocietyofBiblicalLiterature,825HoustonMillRoad,
Suite350,Atlanta,GA30329,USA.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
The“Belly-Myther”ofEndor:interpretationsof1Kingdoms28inthe
early church / translated with an introduction and notes by Rowan A.
GreerandMargaretM.Mitchell.
p. cm. — (Society of Biblical Literature writings from the
Greco-Romanworld;v.16)
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN-13:978-1-58983-120-9(pbk.:alk.paper)
ISBN-10:1-58983-120-9(pbk.:alk.paper)
1.Bible.O.T.Samuel,1st,XXVIII–Criticism,interpretation,etc.
2. Bible. O.T. Samuel, 1st, XXVIII–Criticism, interpretation, etc.–
History–Early church, ca. 30-600. I. Greer, Rowan A. II. Mitchell,
MargaretMary,1956-.
BS1325.52.B452006
222(cid:2).4306–dc22 2006029289
0708091011121314—54321
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmericaonacid-free,recycledpaper
conformingtoANSI/NISOZ39.48-1992(R1997)andISO9706:1994
standardsforpaperpermanence.
Table of Contents
Preface vii
Rights and Permissions xxi
Abbreviations xxiii
Analyses
1. SomeObservationson theTextsTranslated:
TheologicalPerspectives xxxi
2. PatristicRhetoricon Allegory:Origen and
EustathiusPut1Kingdoms28on Trial lxxxv
3. CompositionalAnalyses
A. Origen,Homily5on1Kingdoms cxxv
B. Eustathius,Bishop ofAntioch,
On theBelly-Myther, AgainstOrigen cxxxix
Texts and Translations
1. JustinMartyr,Dialogue withTrypho 105 2
2. Tertullian,OntheSoul 54–58 6
3. TheMartyrdomofPionius 12–14 26
4. Origen,Homily5on1Kingdoms 32
5. Eustathius,Bishop ofAntioch,
OntheBelly-Myther, AgainstOrigen 62
6. Apollinarisof Laodicea,A Fragment
fromtheCatenae 158
7. Diodoreof Tarsus, AFragmentfromtheCatenae 160
8. Gregoryof Nyssa,
LettertoTheodosiusconcerning the Belly-Myther 166
Bibliography 179
Index of BiblicalReferences 185

Preface
WretchthatIam!Ofmyownruinauthor!
Wherearemyoldsupports?Thevaliantyouth
Whoseverynamewasterrortomyfoes,
Myragehasdroveaway.OfGodforsaken
InvainIaskHiscouncel!Hevouchsafes
Noanswertothesonsofdisobedience!
—
Ev’nmyowncouragefailsme! Canitbe?
—
IsSaulbecomeacoward? I’llnotbelieveit:
Ifheav’ndeniestheeaid,seekitfromhell!
GeorgeFrederickHandel,Saul,1739
For Handel in his oratorio, Saul, who sings these words, is
a tragic hero, and this reading of Saul’s story is probably the one
thatfirststrikesthemodernreader. Saul’smeetingwiththebelly-
mytherof Endor canseemnomore thanafinalsettingof theseal
on Saul’s fate. In the early church, however, it was not so much
Saulthatoccupiedcenterstageinthestoryof1Kgdms281 asthe
apparition of Samuel the prophet. William Blake understood the
story this way. Handel’s operas and oratorios may have inspired
Blake,butthatis not thecasehere. The RosenwaldCollectionof
theNationalGalleryinWashingtonincludesapen-and-inkwater-
colorover graphitethatis oneofBlake’searliestworks, produced
withinayearorsoofhisentranceintotheRoyalAcademySchools
in August of 1779. The ghost of Samuel is the central figure and
rises starkly in the center of the painting. Samuel stares at Saul,
who half-kneeling on the left reels back and with outstretched
hands appears to be warding off Samuel’s judgment. The belly-
myther crouches at the right of the painting, and one of Saul’s
2
servants stands transfixed at the far left. It is the apparition of
Samuelthatalsoengagestheimaginationoftheearlychurch. Was
1 BecausetheSeptuagintistheBiblefortheGreekpatristicexegetesdis-
cussed in this volume, we refer to the book as 1 Kingdoms; in Hebrew and
Englishitiscalled1Samuel.
2 SeePeterAckroyd,Blake:ABiography(NewYork:Knopf,1996),28,
77–78,138.
viii the ‘‘belly-myther’’ of endor
itreallySamuel’sspiritthatcameup,orwasitnomorethanade-
monicdeception?
Thanks to the work of four modern scholars, we now have
easy access to some of the significant treatments of 1 Kgdms 28
that survive from the early church. In 1986 Pierre and Marie-
Thérèse Nautin published their edition of Origen’s homilies on
Samuel, including the fifth homily, on 1 Kgdms 28. Three years
laterManlioSimonettipublishedhiseditionofthreeworksbound
togetherinthemanuscripttradition:Origen’shomily, Eustathius
ofAntioch’smuchlongertreatiserefutingOrigen’sinterpretation
of1Kgdms28,andtheshortletterofGregoryofNyssathatgives
us his interpretation of the story. In 2002 José H. Declerck pub-
lishedhiseditionofalltheworksofEustathiusthatsurvive. These
volumesandthenotesincludedinthemplacethematerialsinthe
widercontextofearlyChristianexegesisandtheology.
monacensis graecus 331 (m)
Thistenth-centurymanuscript,preservedinMunich,isvirtually
3
the sole reliable witness to the three works we have mentioned.
ThepictureissomewhatcomplicatedbythefactthatEustathius’s
citationsofOrigen’shomilydonotalwaysconformexactlytoM’s
text of the homily. Moreover, there is fragmentary evidence for
Origen’s work in the Tura papyri (datedca. sixth to seventh cen-
tury), discovered in 1942. What is fascinating, however, is to
speculateconcerninghowthethreewritingscametobecombined,
how they were then included with three other writings, how this
collectionfounditswaywestandeventuallywastranscribedasM.
It is possible to imagine the story as follows. In about the year
240 Origen was invited to preach in Jerusalem in the presence of
Alexander,thebishop. Thiswasobviouslyagreathonor,sincewe
can suppose that, when the bishop was present, he would be the
3 For descriptions of the manuscript, see Pierre and Marie-Thérèse
Nautin, Origène:HoméliessurSamuel(SC328; Paris:Cerf, 1986), 11–13; and
José H. Declerck, Eustathii Antiocheni Opera (CCSG 51; Turnhout: Brepols;
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002), xxx-xxxii, lxix-xciv. Sometimes the
evidencefromtheTurapapyrus(T)isrelevantforestablishingthetext,butit
ispossiblethatEustathius’scitationsofOrigen’shomilyarenotexactorderive
fromadifferentGreekmanuscript.
preface ix
onetopreach. AswelearnfromtheopeningofOrigen’shomily,a
longlessonwasreadfromthelaterchaptersof1Kingdoms. Ori-
gen left to the bishop the choice of what part to consider, and in
this way the story of Saul and the belly-myther of Endor became
Origen’s topic. The storywas alreadyproblematic,andOrigen is
clearlyenteringadebatethatwasalreadytakingplace.
The homily itself apparentlyprovoked further debate, or at
4
leastthatiswhatEustathiussupposes. Includedinhistreatiseare
severalpassagesnotfoundinOrigen’shomilyaswehaveit. There
are several possible explanations, including the guess that Ori-
gen made an addendum to his homily or the idea that Eustathius
is simply citing Origen’s comments as he found them in other
of Origen’s writings, now lost to us. A third possibility, as the
Nautins have suggested and argued for, is that Origen preached
5
a second homily, which was available to Eustathius. Answering
this question is rendered all the more difficult by the fact that, as
throughouthistreatise,Eustathiusisfashioningsome statements
ofOrigen’sbybricolageintohisownpersonificationofhisprovo-
cateur. Whatever the explanation, Eustathius wrote his treatise
against Origen’s interpretation of 1 Kgdms 28 some eighty years
afterOrigenhadpreached. Inabout320Eustathiuswasbishopof
Berea, and it is the absence of any reference to the Arian contro-
versyinthetreatisethatexplainstheconsensusthatitwaswritten
before he becamebishop of Antioch shortly before the council of
Nicaeain325. Eustathius’streatisewaswritteninreplytoaletter
from Eutropius, who is probably to be identified with the bishop
6
ofHadrianopolis. SinceEutropiusreceivedboththetreatiseand
4 SeeEustathius,OntheBelly-Myther26.
5 SeethediscussioninNautinandNautin,Origène,86–89. TheNautins
printthe“second homily”as homily6, butthisfragmentary text is based en-
tirelyuponEustathius,OntheBelly-Myther26. Declerck(EustathiiAntiocheni
Opera,c)notes:“Todaythereisatendencytosupposethefirstpossibility[asec-
ondhomily]. Itisequallypossiblethatthetextsofthe‘secondinterpretation’
citedbyEustathiuscomefroman‘excursus’madeinthecontextofahomilyon
areadingthathadnothingtodowiththestoryofthenecromancer.” Declerck
alsonotesKlostermann’ssuggestionthatthedifficultycanberesolvedbyposit-
ingalacunainM’stextofOrigen’shomily.
6 ThisEutropiuswasdeposedbytheintriguesofJuliantheApostate’s
mother, Basilina (Athanasius, Fug. 3 and H. Ar. 5). See Michel Spanneut,
Recherchessurlesécritsd’Eustathed’Antiocheavecuneéditionnouvelledesfrag-
mentsdogmatiquesetexégétiques(Lille:FacultésCatholiques,1948),60.