Hippolytus' Commentary on the Song of Songs and John 20.pdf

http://itq.sagepub.com

Irish Theological Quarterly

DOI: 10.1177/0021140006075744 2006; 71; 211 Irish Theological Quarterly

Brendan McConvery Reading in Early Christianity

Hippolytus' Commentary on the Song of Songs and John 20: Intertextual

http://itq.sagepub.com The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Pontifical University, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland

can be found at:Irish Theological Quarterly Additional services and information for

http://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

© 2006 Irish Theological Quarterly. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. by Ilie Chiscari on November 30, 2007 http://itq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.maynoothcollege.ie/

http://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


Irish Theological Quarterly71 (2006) 211–222© 2006 Irish Theological QuarterlySage Publications [www.sagepublications.com]DOI: 10.1177/0021140006075744

211

Hippolytus’ Commentary on the Song ofSongs and John 20Intertextual Reading in Early Christianity

Brendan McConvery

The author studies the method of intertextual exegesis in Hippolytus’ Commentary onthe Song of Songs as exemplified in the exposition of the poem of the Night Search forthe Beloved (Song 3:1–5) in the light of the finding of the Empty Tomb in John 20.

Hippolytus’ Commentary on the Song of Songs is the earliest knownChristian commentary on this book, if not indeed the earliest extant

example of the Christian verse-by-verse commentary genre.1 There arethree main sections to this paper. In the first, we shall present Hippolytusand his rediscovered commentary in the light of some recent scholarship.The second part will consist of a brief overview of the commentary and itsexegetical method. Then in the third part, we shall look at Hippolytus’ useof the Fourth Gospel in one lengthy section of his exposition of the Song.

1. Hippolytus and his Commentary

Hippolytus was a shadowy figure, who flourished in the late second/earlythird century of the Christian era. Despite the colourful legends which latergrew up around him, making him in turn the converted guard of the mar-tyred deacon St Lawrence of Rome, the first anti-pope, and finally a martyrof the Roman Church,2 little is known of him with any degree of certaintyand part of the difficulty may spring from the fact that the name Hippolytuswas common, among Christians and pagans, in antiquity. Mystery surround-ing the origins of Hippolytus is already apparent in the earliest references

1. Jean Daniélou regards him ‘comme inaugurant l’exégèse suivie des textes scripturairedans le christianisme,’ Message Evangélique et Culture Hellénistique au II et III siècle (Tournai:Desclee, 1961), 251, a view supported by the most recent study of the commentaries, J. A. Cerrato, Hippolytus Between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of theCorpus, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), 141.2. The suggestion that Hippolytus was an anti-pope, first proposed by Ignaz von Döllinger,is now in decline: ‘Hippolytus, the schismatic bishop of Rome has been holding the groundfor some hundred and twenty years ever since Döllinger first invented him,’ D. L. Powell,‘The Schism of Hippolytus,’ Studia Patristica 12 (1975): 449–56.

211-222 ITQ-075744.qxd 20/3/07 5:59 PM Page 211



to him and his work. Both Eusebius of Caesarea and Jerome mentionHippolytus as a writer and church leader. According to Eusebius, ‘he waspresident of another church (proestõs ekklesias) somewhere’ and, from thecontext, suggests that he was active in the reign of Caracalla (211–217).3Jerome lists some twenty works of Hippolytus, including the Commentaryon the Song, but he clearly knows little about the writer beyond the factthat he was ‘bishop of some church, the name of the city I have beenunable to ascertain.’4 Jerome also suggests that Origen’s career as a bib-lical commentator may have been launched when Ambrosius, his patron,offered to defray the cost of writing and copying a series of commentaries‘in emulation of Hippolytus.’ Given Jerome’s intimate knowledge of theRoman Church, it is intriguing that, in view of the development of thelater tradition of ‘Hippolytus Romanus,’ he is ignorant of his presumedRoman career.

In the course of history, a comparatively large collection of texts has beenascribed to Hippolytus. A factor which strengthened the development of anassociation between Hippolytus and Rome (Hippolytus Romanus) – aconnection suggested in manuscript colophons as early as the fifth century –was the discovery of fragments of a statue of a seated human figure nearthe Campo Verano in Rome in the mid-16th century. On the sides of thechair and the plinth of the statue was a list of what appeared to be early the-ological works, some of which had come to be associated with Hippolytus.It was assumed by its discoverer, Pirro di Liguorio, who reconstituted thefragments, that it was a monumental statue in honour of Hippolytus.Careful archaeological study of this statue some twenty years ago suggestsotherwise. It is more likely that it was originally a monumental statue of aseated female figure, perhaps the Epicurean woman philosopher, Themistaof Lampsacus, known from Book IX of the Lives of the Philosophers byDiogenes Laertius. It has been suggested that such a statue might origin-ally have stood in the library of Alexander Severus and that the list wasan addition by a later hand in tribute to a Christian Greek author.5 In themeantime, a scholarly consensus (that rather rare and sometimes dangerousthing) appears to have emerged that ascribes the work traditionally associ-ated with Hippolytus to two distinct writers. One, a Roman, producedthe Refutatio, the Paschal Canon and the Chronicon. The other, an Easternwriter, produced the remainder, including the Commentary on the Song ofSongs which is the more immediate concern of this paper.

Summing up recent study of the Hippolytan collection, J.A. Cerratosuggests that, given the lack of clarity in the oldest sources, Hippolytus

212 IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

3. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6:2.4. Jerome, De Viris Illustribus LXI.5. By the respected Vatican archaeologist Marguerita Guarducci. The suggestion that the statue was of a female form had indeed been made tentatively at the time of its discovery.

211-222 ITQ-075744.qxd 20/3/07 5:59 PM Page 212



was most likely to have been a bishop of a minor city in the EasternMediterranean region. Close reading of the commentaries

shows the efficacy of the supposition that he was a resident of theenvirons of Laodicea or Ephesus, through consideration of theQuartodeciman evidence, Montanist overtones of gender inclusive-ness, the use of New Testament apocrypha believed to be integral tothe region and general apocalyptic milieu.6

Apart from other writings ascribed to Hippolytus, such as the Paschal Canonand the Apostolic Tradition (the ascription increasingly contested by liturgicalscholars), eighteen commentary-type texts of the Hippolytan corpus havesurvived either in their entirety or in fragments: they include comments on portions of Genesis, Daniel, psalms, portions of the prophetic books and fragments on John (on the two thieves), Matthew and the Book ofRevelation, which would make him an early and prolific contributor to thecommentary genre.

If the identity of the author of the Commentary on the Song of Songs is elu-sive, the commentary as it has come down to us is no less problematical. Forcenturies its existence was known only from its inclusion in lists such asJerome’s or from fragments cited with approval by later authors such asAmbrose of Milan. These fragments were included in Migne’s PatrologiaGreca and were translated into English by the editors of the Ante-NiceneFathers.7 The situation was to change dramatically slightly more than acentury ago. First, a larger fragment that had survived in an Armeniantranslation was published in the late 19th century.8 Some years later, a 10th-century manuscript containing a Georgian translation from the Armenianof patristic texts, including fragments of the Paschal Chronicle and seventreatises of Hippolytus, one of which was our Commentary on the Song ofSongs, was discovered in a monastic library in Tiblisi, Georgia. It was iden-tified and published with a translation by the Russian scholar Nikolai Marr.9Marr’s work reached the Western academic community through the Germantranslation of the commentary by Gottlieb Nathanael Bonwetsch in theTexte und Untersuchungen series in 1902.10 A further find in the GreekPatriarchal Library of Jerusalem in 1924 brought to light yet another copy

HIPPOLYTUS’ COMMENTARY ON THE SONG OF SONGS 213

6. J. A. Cerrato, Hippolytus, 258. Daniélou (Message Evangélique, 251) in view of the strongtraditional elements in his work, is more inclined to locate him in association with Jewishor Jewish-Christian centres of influence.7. Hippolytus PG 10, 627–30. Hippolytus: ‘Fragments,’ in The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 5:Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian (Grand Rapids, IL: Eerdmans,1951), 176.8. J. B. Pitra, Analecta Sacro Spicilegio Solesmensi Parata. II Patres Antenicaeni (Frascati,1884), 232–5.9. N. Marr, Ipolyt. Tokovanie Pjesni pjesni. Gruzinskij Tekst po Ruposki X vjeka. PervodsArmanscago (St Petersburg, 1901).10. G. N. Bonwetsch, ‘Hippolyts Kommentar zum Hohenlied auf Grund von N. MarrsAusgabe des Grusisinischen Textes,’ Texte und Untersuchungen, NF VIII. 2c (Leipzig, 1902).

211-222 ITQ-075744.qxd 20/3/07 5:59 PM Page 213



of the same Hippolytus Corpus, again in Georgian. Gérard Garritte usedboth these manuscripts as the basis for his critical edition – with a Latintranslation – for the Corpus Christianorum series in 1965.11 Garritte’s editionand translation has become the standard reference source for Hippolytus.

Some day, the original Greek version of the Songs commentary mayappear: until then, we are at the mercy of translation, or indeed, of translationseveral times removed from the original, Greek to Armenian, Armenian toGeorgian and Georgian into Latin or German. Despite these limitations, thereconstructed commentary may open some windows for us into the earliesthistory of Christian exegesis of the Song, for which it set a style that surviveduntil the rise of the historical critical method in modern times.

2. The Commentary and its Method

Jean Daniélou regards Hippolytus as standing, together with Origen, onthe frontier between two vital periods in early Christianity. In the first,the oral tradition was the staple of Christian didasklia. In the next, theaccent would shift to the written Book in the form of the Old and NewTestaments.12 Despite his rather full verse-by-verse exegesis of the text,however, Hippolytus’ treatment is less systematic than Origen’s and remainsmore firmly anchored in the earlier tradition with its stress on the pastoraland liturgical value of the text. Hippolytus is heir to a tradition of exegesisthat goes back to Jewish or Judaeo-Christian interpretation. Although theextant texts of Jewish exegesis of the Song are later than commentariessuch as those of Hippolytus or Origen, nevertheless there are passages inthis commentary similar in treatment to those of the Jewish writers of theSongs Rabbah and the Targum.

Gertrude Chappuzeau has suggested that our text may have begun life,not as a systematic commentary, but as a homily on the occasion of anEaster baptismal liturgy.13 Homiletic features are apparent in the survivingtexts and the Jerusalem manuscript carries the title ‘Sermon of the blessedFather Hippolytus on the Song of Songs.’ One of the Armenian fragmentscontains a verse alluding to the celebration of the feast of Easter, ‘as we keepthis most holy festival today, we rejoice with the angels’ (XXV:10) and thewhole commentary concludes with a short doxology ‘glorifying God towhom is glory and power for ever and ever’ (XXVIII:12).14 It is impossibleto say with any degree of certainty whether these come from the work oflater editors and scribes or whether they were features of Hippolytus’ ori-ginal text. The text to be studied later in this paper may lend further support


11. Gérard Garritte, Traités d’Hippolyte sur David et Goliath, Sur le Cantique des Cantiques,et sur l’Antéchrist. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Vol. 263, 264 (Louvain:CSCO, 1965).12. Daniélou, Message Evangélique, 237.13. G. Chappuzeau, ‘Die Auslegung des Hohenlied durch Hippolytus von Rom,’ Jahrbuchfür Antiche und Christentum 19 (1976): 45–81.14. Chapter and verse indications are from Garritte’s edition.

211-222 ITQ-075744.qxd 20/3/07 5:59 PM Page 214



to the homiletic origins of the commentary. In the first modern study of thetext, Bonwetsch had already observed the presence of homiletic-stylerhetorical flourishes but did not consider it a homily in the strict sense.15 Ifit were indeed a paschal homily, it may prove to be a link between the Jewishliturgical use of the Song at Passover and its use as a reading text in the EasterVigil in some ancient Christian Churches of the Alexandrian tradition, suchas the Coptic and Ethiopian.

For Hippolytus, as for all Patristic exposition of the Old Testament, thehermeneutical starting point for interpreting the scriptures of Israel was theChrist-event as expressed in lapidary fashion by Luke the Evangelist: ‘begin-ning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the thingsabout himself in all the scriptures’ (Luke 24:27). A relatively leisurely intro-duction (three pages out of a total of 20 in Garritte’s translation) discussesthe putative Solomonic authorship of the three Wisdom books of Proverbs,Qoheleth and the Song. This is commonplace in the Jewish interpretativetradition reflected, for example, in the Midrash Rabbah on Songs, and thereis probably fertile work to be done on a detailed exploration of the linksbetween the Jewish exegetical tradition and Hippolytus. As son of David,Solomon is worthy of respect: he found grace through God, and was giventhe gift of wisdom, but he was himself neither grace nor wisdom – thatbelongs to Christ, the Son of David par eminence – but he composed histhree books under the guidance of the Spirit. For Hippolytus this triad ofbooks immediately suggests the triad of the Holy Trinity. Proverbs revealsthe wondrous wisdom of the Father, Ecclesiastes teaches that the world, ‘thegathering place of darkness,’ will be taught by the Son (I:5), and the Song,as part of the divine economy of the Holy Spirit, teaches many thingsthrough consolation and praise (I:5). The Song, he suggests, is as much asample of the work of Solomon as Proverbs. Just as the scribes of the courtof Hezekiah chose from among the 3,000 parables of Solomon (cf. Prov25:1), the Song represents the best three of the 5,000 of his songs (cf. 1Kgs4:32; according to LXX, 5,000; Hebrew and modern translations ‘one thou-sand and five’). While Hippolytus does supply this three-fold division of thebook, the present commentary ends at Song 3:8, perhaps what Hippolytusconsidered to be the limits of the first song. While the commentary is a rela-tively complete exposition of the text, verses 2:4–7; 2:11–13, 16–17; 3:2, 5receive no special treatment.

Hippolytus’ method of interpretation is perforce an intertextual one. Forhim, as for the other writers of the Patristic age, the bible is the great self-referential text where obscurities in one place can be illumined by refer-ence to another on the basis of a similarity of words within the text. Theextent of this intertextual reading of the scriptures can be seen by the factthat there are approximately 60 (62) quotations from other Old Testament


15. ‘Ein Homilie in der strengen Sinne ist dieser Kommentar nicht, aber er besitzt dochnoch ungleich mehr als In Danielem den Charakter einer Ansprache.’ Bonwetsch,‘Hippolyts Kommentar,’ 90.

211-222 ITQ-075744.qxd 20/3/07 5:59 PM Page 215



books apart from the Song and a more or less similar number from the New(61), without counting the abundance of implied or indirect citations.16 Asmight be expected, the most frequently cited books are Genesis and theGospels (Matt 13, Mark 9, Luke 12, John 9).

Hippolytus established the ground rules that were to determine the typo-logical and allegorical exegesis of the Song for the next millennium and ahalf, and which survived the Reformation.17 It continued, for instance, inthe notes of Calvin’s Genevan Bible or in the commentary of John Wesley.Thus, the King-Beloved is a figure for Christ while the Spouse representsIsrael/the Church/the human soul. Her dark colour represents sin but sheis beautiful by virtue of the grace of the Beloved. The desire to be kissed bythe Beloved represents desire for intimacy, for union with the heavenlyWord, the breasts of the Beloved are the two laws of love, the foxes thatspoil the vines represent the heretics or false prophets, the window throughwhich the Beloved peers represent the prophets, etc.

It is not possible to present even a brief résumé of the contents of the com-mentary within the limits of the present paper. Hippolytus’ attempts to distilmeaning from sometimes highly unpromising texts are, as one might expect,occasionally ingenious. The mare drawing the chariot of Pharaoh (VIII, Song1:9), for instance, becomes a symbol of the apostles preaching to the Gentileson the basis of an association with Habakkuk 3:15, ‘You trampled the seawith your horses, churning the mighty waters.’ This in turn evokes Ezekiel’svision of the heavenly chariot and the identification of the four livingcreatures with the four evangelists, an identification which seems to havebecome commonplace by the middle of the second century. Similarly, thedescription of Solomon’s litter surrounded by sixty sword-bearing heroes ofIsrael is interpreted as Christ as the true place of rest (XXVIII, Song 3:7–8),which brings the commentary to a close. Hippolytus explores many dimen-sions of the rest Christ brings, including the miracles of raising people fromthe dead. Solomon’s bodyguard of sixty warriors is identified with the sixtygenerations between Adam and Christ, ending with Joseph, the husband ofMary, as they are listed in the Gospel genealogies.

Some of Hippolytus’ interpretations are memorable. Commenting on theBeloved who comes leaping on the mountains (Cant 2:8ff), Hippolytus writes

(XXI: 1) O dispensation of new grace! O exceedingly great mystery!‘Behold my beloved comes leaping.’ For what is the leaping of the


16. See Bonwetsch, ‘Das Hohenlied Kommentar’ in Hippolytus Werke I. 2: Exegetische undhomiletische Schriften. Die Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte(Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1897), 78–80.17. There are strong similarities between some of the typological meanings suggested byHippolytus and those of the later rabbis in the Midrash Rabbah and the Targum. Although intheir present forms at least, these are later texts, the existence of a ‘more than literal’ interpret-ation of the Song in 1st-century Judaism is attested by the early mishnaic debate about the‘canonical status’ of the Song (mYadaim 3:5). Detailed evidence of how the earliest generationof rabbis interpreted the details of the text is lacking and so, the question of which directionthe influences followed must remain open.

211-222 ITQ-075744.qxd 20/3/07 5:59 PM Page 216



Word? He leapt from heaven into the womb of the Virgin, from theholy womb he leapt to the wood [of the Cross], from the wood, heleapt down to the underworld. Then he leapt back to the earth inhuman flesh. O new resurrection! Then he leapt from the earth toheavens. Here he sits at the right hand of the Father, and then hewill leap down to earth once more, to bring retribution or reward.18

Similarly, just as perfume gives forth its fragrance when poured from itscontainer, so the Word, sealed in the bosom of the Father, transmits thefragrance of his presence to the world from the beginning of creation.

Hippolytus is no detached commentator. He maintains a lively dialoguewith his audience, addressing it in apostrophes or calling attention to thewondrous mystery he discerns within the text, a clue perhaps to the ori-ginal oral mode of the book’s composition.

We now pass on to a close reading of what is probably the best-knowntext of the commentary: Hippolytus’ reading of Song 3:1–6 which consti-tutes Chapters 24 and 25 of the commentary.

3. Hippolytus on the Easter Mystery: Translation of XXIV–XXV

XXIV 1. For this reason then, she cries out and says: ‘I sought him by nightwhom my soul loves: I sought him, but did not find him. The watchmenwho kept the city found me: ‘Have you seen him whom my soul loves?’ Andnow that I had gone a short distance past them, I found him whom my soulloves. I found him and will not let him go until I bring him into my mother’shouse and into the treasure house of her who conceived me’ (Song 3:1a,3–4). 2. O blessed voice! O blessed women revealed by an earlier type!Because of this, she cries out and says, ‘I sought by night him whom my soulloves.’ See this fulfilled in [Martha and] Mary.19 With them, the synagoguewas diligently seeking the dead Christ whom it did not expect to see alive.Therefore she teaches us and says, ‘I sought him by night, and I found himwhom my soul loves.’ 3. The Gospel writings say, ‘the women went by nightto seek the tomb’ (cf. Luke 24:1, John 20:1). ‘I sought him but I did not findhim.’ ‘Why do you seek the living among the dead?’ (Luke 24:5). No one


18. This passage entered the Western tradition through Ambrose of Milan: ‘Salit de coeloin Virginem, de utero in praesepe, de Jordane in crucem, de cruce in tumulum, in coelumde sepulcro. Proba mihi David salientem, proba currentem; tu enim dixisti: Exsultavit utgigas ad currendam viam, a summo coelo egressio ejus; et occursus ejus usque ad summumejus, nec est qui se abscondat a calore ejus (Ps 18:6, 7). Et nunc salit, et nunc currit, de cordePatris super sanctos suos, de Oriente super Occidentem, de Septentrione super Meridiem.Iste est qui ascendit super Occasum, ipse super coelos coelorum ad Orientem, ipse ascenditsuper montes, ipse super colles’ (In Psalmum David CXVIII Expositio. Sermo VI. PL 15.1565.31). It is cited in the Glossa Ordinaria on the Song in a form derived from Gregorythe Great through Bede, but traceable ultimately through Ambrose to Hippolytus. See therecent English translation, The Glossa Ordinaria of the Song of Songs. Translated with anintroduction and notes by Mary Dove (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2004).19. Armenian version omits ‘Martha’ but adds ‘and in their synagogue.’

211-222 ITQ-075744.qxd 20/3/07 5:59 PM Page 217



was to be found there, because heaven, and not the tomb, was his home.Why do you look on the earth for him who is exalted and sits on the throne?Why do you look in a despicable grave for the one who is the most gloriousof all?20 Why do you seek the perfect one in a tomb? Behold, the stone isrolled away (cf. Matt 28:2, Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2). Why do you seek in atomb one who is already in heaven full of grace? Why do you seek for thatwhich has been freed as though bound and shut up in prison? 4. Behold thenew and perfect mystery here that sounds forth and says: ‘I sought him, butI did not find him. The watchmen who kept the city found me.’ Who werethose who found her, if not the angels who were sitting there? And what citywere they keeping if not the new Jerusalem, the body of Christ? ‘Thewatchmen who kept the city found me.’ These women ask them: ‘Have youseen him whom my soul loves?’ But they say: ‘Who are you looking for? Jesusof Nazareth? He is not here. Behold he is risen’ (cf. Mark 16:6; Matt 28:6).XXV.1. ‘And when I had gone a short distance from them.’ When theyhad turned and gone away, the Saviour came to meet them (cf. John20:14). Then was fulfilled the saying ‘Behold when I had gone a short dis-tance, I found him whom my soul loves.’ The Saviour replies and says‘Martha, Mary.’ And they reply to him ‘Rabbuni,’ which is translated ‘MyLord’ (cf. John 20:16). ‘I have found him whom I love and I will not lethim go.’ At the same time, she embraces his feet and clasps him fast (cf.Matt 28:9, John 20:17). But he calls out to her and said ‘Do not cling tome, for I have not yet ascended to my Father’ (John 20:17). But she holdsfast and says: ‘I will not let you go until I bring you in and set you in myheart.’ ‘I will not let him go, until I bring him into my mother’s house, intothe treasure house of her who conceived me.’ Her heart is overwhelmedwith the love of Christ and she does not wish to be separated from him.Therefore she cries out: ‘I have found him and will not let him go.’ O blessedwoman who clings to the feet of him who is about to fly off into the air!3. This is what Martha and Mary say to him. The mystery of Martha wasshown earlier through Solomon: ‘We will not permit you to fly away.Ascend to the Father and offer a new victim, Eve, no longer wanderingbut clinging with her hands to the tree of life. Behold, I have clung to hisknees, not like a cord that can be broken, but I have clung to the feet ofChrist. Do not cast me to the earth lest I wander, snatch me up into heaven.’O blessed women who did not wish to be separated from Christ.21 4. That iswhy she says; ‘When I had gone on a short distance, I found him whom my soul loves.’ Receive my soul, let it be united with the Spirit, becomestrengthened, perfected that you may even be joined to the heavenly body.Let this body of mine be joined with the heavenly body. Drink it asthough it were wine, take it up, bring it to heaven, then a new cup mixed,that the woman may follow whom she wishes and that she may not stray,


20. Armenian version adds: ‘why do you seek the perfect stone? Behold, the stone is rolledaway.’21. Sections 4 and 5 are missing in the Armenian version.

211-222 ITQ-075744.qxd 20/3/07 5:59 PM Page 218



no longer wounded in the heel, nor having attained the tree of knowledge.Hereafter she has been made a conqueror over the tree through death. 5. Receive Eve, no longer like a woman groaning in childbirth, becauseher pains, groans and sorrows are ended. Receive Eve now walking inorder, receive and offer this offering which is approved by the Father. OfferEve as something new, not now as one who is naked, for her clothing is nolonger the leaves of the fig-tree (cf. Gen 3:7), but now she is clothed withthe Holy Spirit, for she has put on the good garment in which there is nocorruption. Christ is not naked: although the shroud lay in the tomb, hewas not naked. Even the first Adam was not naked: he had put on therenewed vesture of sinlessness and humility and incorruptibility, of whichhe was stripped after he was deceived. Now he is again found to beclothed. 6. After this, let the synagogue cry out and confess through thesewomen. They show us a good testimony who were made apostles to theapostles, sent by Christ. It is to these that the angel first said ‘Go and tellhis disciples: “He goes before you into Galilee, there you shall see him” ’(Mark 16:7, Matt 28:7). So that the apostles might not doubt that thesewomen were sent by the angels,22 Jesus himself comes to meet the apostlesso that the women might be truly recognised as apostles of Christ andmake good the failure of ancient Eve by their obedience. Hearing nowwith obedience, she appears as perfected. 7. O new consolations! Eve hasbecome an apostle. Now she understands the cleverness of the serpent andwill not be overcome again. She now hates the one she formerly trustedand considers him as an enemy who once seduced her through concupis-cence. The tree of seduction no longer deceives her. She now rejoices inlife through the tree, and tastes of the tree through confessing Christ. Sheis worthy of the good and desires food. 8. Now she will no longer hungernor offer men corruptible food. She has received the incorruptible. Eve isnow the single-minded helpmate of Adam (cf. Gen 2:18). O good help-mate who brought the news to her husband! So do the women announcethe good news to the disciples. 9. But they considered them to be deceivedbecause they themselves were [still] doubting (cf. Luke 24:11). The causeof this was that it was Eve’s custom to announce deception and not thetruth. What is this new word that you have, O women, of the resurrec-tion? And because of this they believed them to be deceived. But so thatthey should not be thought to be deceived but speaking the truth, Christ[himself] was revealed to them at that time and said ‘Peace be with you’ (cf. John 20:19), as though to say ‘It is I who appeared to thesewomen and wished to send them to you as apostles.’ 10. Now from thesefacts, it is clear, beloved, how the synagogue is subdued and the Church isglorified.23


22. Armenian version reads: ‘lest those sent by angels should be slow, Christ himself comesto meet them sending them as women apostles of Christ.’23. Armenian version adds: ‘As we keep this most holy festival today, we rejoice with the angels.’

211-222 ITQ-075744.qxd 20/3/07 5:59 PM Page 219



4. Some Comments on Hippolytus’ Text

The highly rhetorical flourishes employed in this section are evident andmay lend weight to the suggestion that this section of the commentary atleast originated as an Easter homily or instruction. The girl’s night-timesearch for her beloved (Song 3:1–5) provides Hippolytus with a key text withwhich to explore the meaning of the resurrection of Jesus from the contextof the discovery of the tomb by the women. While the dominant text isclearly John 20: 1–18 (visit to the tomb while it is still dark, meeting withJesus, greeting him as Rabbouni, holding on to his feet, their mission to thedisciples), Hippolytus does not read it in isolation from the correspondingsynoptic versions of the Easter event. This manner of proceeding, however,creates several fresh problems of interpretation along the way. More unex-pectedly, and perhaps of greater theological interest, is the way in which thestory of Eve and the Fall becomes a second intertext through which theEaster mystery is explored. We shall treat both questions separately.

For the purpose of comment, the text can be divided into three sections:

1. The Woman and the Watchman2. The Women and the Spouse3. The Women and the Gospel

Hippolytus’ identification of the women at the tomb as Mary andMartha (XXIV:2) is puzzling. One might be forgiven for thinking that thisis merely a lapse of attention of a writer who, following the simplificationof the Fourth Gospel, was attempting to offer his own solution to thealready confusing question of who exactly were the women disciples pres-ent at the tomb on Easter day. The Gospels show little agreement on thepoint, beyond the name of Mary Magdalene, who is a constant in the trad-ition. In the Fourth Gospel, she is mentioned alone, perhaps a first steptowards simplifying what may already have been conceived as a problemof interpretation and consistency. Along with Magdalene, Mark includesMary, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1); Matthew names two women,Mary Magdalene and the third rather confusingly as ‘the other Mary’(28:1). Luke is vaguer still: along with Mary Magdalene, he names Joanna,Mary, the mother of James, and ‘the other women with them’ (24:10).While none of the canonical Gospels includes Martha, she is named as anEaster witness in two texts from the non-canonical tradition. The Epistleof the Apostles (Epistula Apostolorum) which has survived in Coptic andEthiopic from the fourth or fifth centuries, identifies the women asMartha, Mary Magdalene and a third called either Sarah (Ethiopic) or thedaughter of Martha (Coptic) (Ep. Ap 9). J.K. Eliot, who has edited a recentcollection of these texts, suggests that some of its distinctive characteristics,such as its anti-Gnostic tendencies and its concern with the imminenceof the Parousia, may be indicators of the comparatively early origin of the


211-222 ITQ-075744.qxd 20/3/07 5:59 PM Page 220



traditions underlying the Epistula Apostolorum.24 Martha is also mentioned asa resurrection witness in another (probably later) Coptic text, The Book of theResurrection of Jesus Christ by Bartholomew the Apostle.25 This may suggest thatHippolytus was familiar with a popular tradition, possibly of Egyptian origin,that included Martha as a witness to the empty tomb. Since Hippolytusnowhere explicitly names Mary as ‘Magdalene,’ we may have the beginningsof the tendency to confuse the personages of the Gospel, with MaryMagdalene being identified with the sister of Martha (cf. Luke 10:38–42 andJohn 11, 12) or with the woman who anointed the head of Jesus.

Of equal interest is the role Hippolytus ascribes to Eve. Despite Paul’sinterest in the figure of Christ as the New or Last Adam (e.g. Rom 5, 1 Cor15), the New Testament shows little interest in a corresponding figure ofthe New Eve.26 Later apocryphal texts, especially those depicting Christ’sdescent to the underworld, associate Eve with Adam in hearing from thevictorious Christ the Gospel of Resurrection, e.g. the Latin version ofChrist’s Descent into Hell (9:1)27 and The Book of the Resurrection of JesusChrist by Bartholomew the Apostle already cited. Later Fathers will apply Eve-typology to Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Hippolytus, however, sees the womenat the tomb as the true anti-types of Eve, whose earlier disobedience andinfidelity are replaced by the faithful search of Martha and Mary.

5. Theology and Milieu of Hippolytus

There are several unusual features in Hippolytus’ reading of the Easterstory. Commentators are unanimous in asserting our author’s theologicalorthodoxy. There is no hint of concession to Gnostic ideas, and indeed, it hasbeen suggested that the reason for including Martha as a Resurrection wit-ness is to counter the prominence given to Mary Magdalene in some Gnosticcircles.28 In contrast to the prevailing portrayal of women in patristic texts,

the commentaries [of Hippolytus] convey an attitude towards womenquite different from that of Tertullian and other patristic sources ofthe period … These texts [of the Fathers] have been adduced as evi-dence of a growing subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, patriarchaltendency in the early third century. While the commentaries are not


24. ‘The Epistle of the Apostles (Epistula Apostolorum)’ in The Apocryphal New Testament:A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation, edited by J. K. Eliot(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 554–85.25. Summary in Apocryphal New Testament, 668–72.26. There are only two passing references to Eve in the NT (2 Cor 11:3 and 1 Tim 2:13).Roman Catholic exegetes have occasionally attempted to trace an Eve–Mary parallel inseveral texts, but this enterprise sometimes owes as much to the ingenuity of the interpreteras to the language of the text.27. Apocryphal New Testament, 203.28. See the discussion in Cerrato, Hippolytus, ch 13, ‘The Theology of Martha and Mary.’

211-222 ITQ-075744.qxd 20/3/07 5:59 PM Page 221



exempt from the culture in which they were composed, signs of anattempt to transcend elements of patriarchy appear.29

These signs include the absence of prescriptive texts about women, theequality of men and women in the divine economy, and finally the inclu-sion of women in the mission of the community, whereby ‘Eve becomes anApostle.’ Trying to locate such a community in time and space is difficult.Cerrato is tempted to detect influences from the Montanist movementand pleads the need for a more nuanced reading of this movement. Hisinference that the women of the movement were ‘bookish, composing andpublishing literature’ and that ‘they appear to have been concerned withthe interpretation of scripture, perhaps including exegetical commentary,’that they developed a high view of the ecclesiastical status of women, aspresbyters, bishops and ministers of other ranks, runs the risk of makingthem just a little too modern!

6. Some Concluding Observations

This essay has sought to investigate some aspects of this intriguing com-mentary of the early church. Although Hippolytus’ work disappeared fromview in the West at an early stage, it continued to exercise its influencethrough its inclusion in the growing body of commentary on the Songfrom the Patristic era through the High Middle Ages, even if they wereattributed to other writers. Hippolytus’ images and ideas were passed downby the commentators who believed that the first duty of a commentatorwas to be a responsible tradent of the wisdom of the past rather than aninnovator. Intertextual reading of the text of Songs and the Johannineresurrection story survived in the liturgical tradition. Of late, exegeteshave attempted, with interesting results, to read the Song and John inter-textually.30 It is a fertile field, and Hippolytus has shown us the way.

BRENDAN MCCONVERY, Dean of the Faculty of Theology, St. Patrick’sCollege, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland. [email protected]


29. Cerrato, Hippolytus, 210–11.30. For example, Anne Winsor, A King is Bound in the Tresses. Studies in Biblical Literature6 (Oxford: Peter Lang, 1999) and Adeline Fehrenbach, The Women in the Life of theBridegroom (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998).

211-222 ITQ-075744.qxd 20/3/07 5:59 PM Page 222



Documents

Hippolytus' Commentary on the Song of Songs and John 20.pdf