Vigihae Christianae 43 (1989), 105-126, E.

J Brill, Leiden

HADES OF HIPPOLYTUS OR TARTARUS OF TERTULLIAN?

THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FRAGMENT DE UNIVERSO

BY

C. E. HILL The variously-titled fragment De Universo found in the Sacra Parallela of (pseudo) John Damascene 1 is today nearly without excep tion ascribed to Hippolytus of Rome. 2 It will be the purpose of this paper, however, first of all to show that the fragment's doctrine of the intermediate state of the righteous is radically opposed to that found in the authentic 3 works of Hippolytus, 4 secondly to uncover other discrepancies which together weigh quite heavily against Hippolytan authorship and finally to offer another name, already disclosed in our title, which may be connected much more appropriately with the frag ment De Universo. I In the view of the author of De Universo, all the dead, righteous and unrighteous alike, are detained' in the subterranean hades until the time of the resurrection of the body. The righteous there inhabit a plea sant compartment, the bosom of Abraham, where they may con template the blessings in their view and await the 'rest and eternal revival in heaven which succeed this location'. Separated from these by 'a deep and vast abyss', the wicked are dragged to a lower section of hades where they endure ghastly torments anticipatory of their ultimate ruin. The significant point for our study so far is that redeemed and non-redeemed alike are to be found in the underworld until the last day. When we turn to Hippolytus, however, we find that in his view Christ's work of salvation has penetrated to the depths of hades, violently disrupting its demographics. In his On the Great Song frag ment 1 he comments, 5 He who drew () out of the nethermost hades the man firstformed of the earth, lost and held by the bonds of death; he who came down from

106

C. E. HILL

above and bore upward () him who was below unto the things above; he who becomes the evangelist of the dead and the redeemer of souls and the resurrection of the buried; he it was who had become the helper of the conquered man...The heavenly one who calls the earthly (one) unto the things above; the well-born one who wills through his own obe dience to set free the slave; the one who turned man into adamant, when destroyed in the earth and become the food of serpents. And having been suspended on the tree he made him (man) lord over him who had con quered and on this account he was found through the tree a victorybearer.6 It is clear from this that the descensus of Christ into hades actually effected a release, a 'drawing out' of Adam, and presumably of others as well, and a bearing aloft to heaven. 7 Though it is true that Hippolytus often speaks of Christ's own ascension to heaven in terms of his pre senting 'man', i.e. his own human nature, to God, by mentioning here the rescue of the individual Adam (a controverted issue since Tatian had denied salvation to the first sinner) Hippolytus shows that he, like many of his predecessors, 8 held to a storming of hades by Christ. Christ's rescue of Adam 'from the deepest pit of Hades' is again proclaimed in De David et Goliath l l . 9 Maintaining in his treatment of Dan. 9.24 (Commentary on Daniel IV.33.4) that Christ in his first advent loosed what was until then sealed up, Hippolytus says, 'As many, therefore, as Satan had ensnared and bound, these the Lord, when he came, loosed from the bonds of death, having bound the one who was strong against us, but having set humanity free. As also Isaiah says, "Then he will say to the men in bonds, 'Come forth', and to those in darkness, 'Show yourselves' " 10 (Isa. 49.9)'. A comparison with the passage quoted above from On the Great Song would suggest that those who were in the 'bonds of death' were deceased and in hades. 1 1 Consistent with this view of a transferrai of the ancients from hades to heaven is Hippolytus's belief that the righteous of the Christian era are no longer subject to the hold of the underworld but instead rise to heaven to be with Christ. In Comm. Dan. 1.21.4, 5 Hippolytus expounds upon Susanna's cry that it is better for her to fall prey to the false charges of the wicked elders than to acquiesce to their lusts and thus to sin against God: For those who are brought forward for the sake of the name of Christ, if they do what is commanded by men, die to God but continue to live in the world; while if they do not do what is commanded by men they will not

HADES OF HIPPOLYTUS OR TARTARUS OF TERTULLIAN?

107

escape the clutches of the persecutors but, condemned by them, they die...for it is better to die by means of unrighteous men in order to live with God ( ), than consenting to them and being released by them to 'fall into the hands of God' (Heb. 10.13). The martyr, by refusing to save himself for this world through unrighteous means, is killed by men but goes to live with God as, it would seem, an immediate consequence of his faithful suffering unto death. 1 2 And in fact, Hippolytus frequently tells us that saints such as Daniel, Isaiah, Stephen and David and indeed all who have departed pure from this world now possess () their heavenly crowns (Antichr. 31; De David et Goliath 12.1; Comm Dan. II.35.5; 37.3). Though dead as regards the world and asleep as regards their bodily condition, they are alive nonetheless (Antichr. 30, 31). To this might also be compared Apostolic Tradition 36.5, 12 wherein mention is made in both the nones and mattins prayers of the 'souls of the righteous' who praise and glorify God. In the latter text the righteous souls are listed along with the ministering angels. In Antichrist 59 Hippolytus enlarges upon the metaphor of the church as a ship, with Christ her skilled pilot: The Church has mariners on the right and left as holy angels, assessors through whom she is always governed and defended. There is in her a ladder which leads aloft to the sailyard as an image of the sign of Christ's passion, which is drawing the faithful unto the ascent to heaven. There are top sails upon the sailyard, being united on high as orders of prophets, martyrs and apostles at rest in the kingdom of Christ.13 The faithful are being drawn up to heaven by the mechanism of the cross (cf. Ignatius, Eph. 9.1, 2), the special orders of prophets, martyrs and apostles forming the uppermost tiers of the exalted resting in the kingdom of Christ. 14 This kingdom, as the metaphorical description and indeed the teaching of Hippolytus elsewhere demonstrate, is the kingdom of Christ in heaven which he has inherited since his resurrec tion and ascension to the Father's right hand (Antichr. 61; Comm. Dan. IV.9.3, 4; 11.4; Ref. 30; Against Noetus 6, 18). Despite this fairly abundant and clearly intelligible evidence that Hip polytus taught a 'heavenly' view of the intermediate state of the righteous, much of which was collected already by Schmidt, the attribu tion of De Universo to Hippolytus persists. Marcel Richard can even say that 'le trait Sur l'univers est, sans aucun doute possible, l'oeuvre de

108

C. E. HILL

notre auteur'. 15 In his excellent article on Hippolytus in the Dictionnaire de Spiritualit, Richard argues trenchantly both that the De Universo is an authentic work of Hippolytus and that its version of the intermediate state is exactly that which is to be found in the saint's extant works. It will be necessary, therefore, owing to Richard's deserved authority in Hippolytan studies, to take up his treatment in this article point by point. After summarizing the teaching of De Universo, Richard seeks to show that 'Les traits principaux de ce schma se retrouvent, en effet, dans ses commentaires'. 16 He begins with two citations from the Commentary on Proverbs, sections 48 and 71. In both citations Richard uses the text of Pseudo-Anastasius in preference to that of the exegetical chain found in Vatican gr. 1802, the commentary or Epitome eclogarum of Procope and the chain given by Polychronius. The text of section 48 in the exegetical chain reads, ' , thus restricting the inhabitants of the lower world to the wicked, whereas the version of Ps.-Anastasius omits the word . The text of section 71 in the exegetical chain places the , whereas Ps.-Anastasius places the . Richard has edited all these mss in another work where he explains his preferences on these passages. His reason for discounting the witness of the exegetical chain and accepting that of Ps.Anastasius is flatly stated to be that the readings of the latter conform better, in his opinion, to the doctrine of hades elsewhere expressed by Hippolytus, chiefly in De Universo (other texts he lists will be examined below)! 1 7 Since we are here calling into question the Hippolytan author ship of De Universo we are left with no other reason to accept the readings of Ps.-Anastasius over against those of the exegetical chain in these two instances. If the readings of the latter are taken as (more) original, there is then no conflict in the Commentary on Proverbs with the view which I have suggested was that of Hippolytus. But even if the readings Richard prefers are accepted, it may be maintained that still no real contradiction is thereby offered. As to section 48, the text he prefers would simply say, 'For hades in no way ceases to receive the souls of men', and this could still have meant that hades receives the souls of unrighteous men (only), a view Hippolytus would have held; it does not say that hades receives the souls of all men. As for section 71, Richard's preference would indeed indicate that the souls of the righteous are under the earth (rather than in the more neutral, 'places established by

HADES OF HIPPOLYTUS OR TARTARUS OF TERTULLIANO

109

God'). 1 8 But Richard omits to mention the fact that section 72 goes on to speak of a storming of hell by Christand the text of Ps.Anastasius is more explicit on this than that of the exegetical chain: , .19 Thus the most that can have been affirmed in section 71 is that in the days of Solomon (Hippolytus is commenting on Prov. 30.29) the souls of the righteous dead were . But Christ chose to loose the souls in hades which had been trodden down. These texts from the Comm. Prov. then on the contrary pose quite serious problems for Richard's view and not for the one taken here. Richard next refers to Antichrist 26 where Hippolytus states that Christ has been made 'King of things in heaven, and things on earth and things under the earth, and Judge of all' (cf. Phil. 2.10). He is King of things under the earth, 'because he also was numbered among the dead, evangelizing the souls of the saints, conquering death through death'. 2 0 Richard continues, 'Ces sont, en effet, les esprits des anges Tartarouchoi et les mes des justes (In Dan. II, 29,11)'. But the reference in Comm. Dan. 11.29.11 cannot be determinative, for here Hippolytus is clarifying just whom the three Hebrew children were addressing when they said, ye spirits and souls of the righteous, bless ye the Lord'. The 'spirits' are the angels of Tartarus, the 'souls of the righteous' are the righteous in hades. But again, in the view of Hip polytus the souls of the righteous would have been in hades at the time of the Babylonian captivity, before the descensus ad inferos of Christ. This does not at all tell us that he agrees with the doctrine of De Universo. Richard then mentions two texts of Hippolytus which speak of Christ's descent into and ascent out of hades, Blessings of Moses21 (on Dt. 33.13) and Comm. Cant. 21.2, neither of which, it must be admit ted, says anything about a rescue accomplished by Christ. Next Richard brings us to a fascinating section from the Comm. Dan. III.31.2-3, where 'Aprs avoir comment l'pisode de Daniel dans la fosse aux lions, Hippolyte utilise ce rcit pour dcrire l'arrive de l'me dans l'Hads' (col. 566). The following text is then cited. Behold, today Babylon is the world, and the satraps are the authorities of this (world), and Darius is the one who is their king. The den is hades, the lions are the punishing angels. Therefore imitate Daniel!, not fearing the satraps and not submitting to human decrees, in order that having been cast into the den of the lions, you might be protected by the angel and

110

HILL

might tame the beasts and might be reverenced () by them as a servant of God...22 This at last seems to be proof positive that Hippolytus expected all the righteous even in his own day, upon departing this life, to make their abodes in hades until the resurrection. The text, however, will repay closer scrutiny. Richard ends his quotation where we have ended it above but the text in fact goes on to say, ...and 'corruption' might not be found in you, but that you might be borne aloft out of the den alive and might be found a partner of the resurrection and might rule over your enemies and might render thanks to the everliving God.23 No sooner does Hippolytus mention a 'sojourn' for some of his readers in hades, than he also says they will be extracted therefrom. The question is, is this a delayed extraction, to take place at the time of the resurrection of the body, 2 4 or a practically immediate one? It is crucial at this point to recognize that Hippolytus does not have in mind all his Christian readers in general, but those who will be called upon to bear witness before the authorities and thus depart this world, that is, he is making his analogy with the situation of the martyr. Richard recognizes this, as his next words indicate. 25 But if Hippolytus is making his analogy with the situation of the martyr we have already a grid provided by him into which we may place and by which we may seek to interpret this statement: The martyr Stephen, as we have seen above, is said by Hippolytus already to have received his heavenly crown. Along with the apostles and prophets the martyrs form the highest echelons of the saints in the kingdom of Christ above. To the martyr if to nobody else is granted a place in heaven before the bodily resurrection and there fore, unless we are prepared to admit that Hippolytus in this passage is blatantly contradicting his own teaching on martyrdom, we must reckon with the necessity of finding another explanation of his import here. Our present passage says that these martyrs will be brought up from hades 'alive' (), and this parallels Antichrist 30, 31 where Hippolytus addresses the deceased prophets as 'living ones' (). Richard himself refers to a text from an earlier portion of the Comm. Dan. (II.37.4) where Hippolytus, in language manifestly taken from Rev. 20.4-6, says that he who departs worthily in martyrdom 'is no longer judged at all but judges, possessing his own portion in the first resurrection'. 2 6 Richard follows the accentuation in Bonwetsch's text in making a future, , but the flow of thought indicated by

HADES OF HIPPOLYTUS OR TARTARUS OF TERTULLIAN?

Ill

, seems rather to emphasize a contrast between the position the martyr found himself in at the time of his death and the new position obtained as an immediate consequence. This is even more plausible because a judging prerogative for the martyr after death is found previous to Hippolytus in the writings of Clement of Alexandria (Strom. VI.xiii. 106.2, though Clement does not restrict this to martyrs alone), and reappears in Origen (Exh.Mart. 28) and Dionysius (Eusebius, H.E. VI.42.5). Such an interpretation also recalls the text from 1.21 cited above, in which Hippolytus says of the martyr that he is killed by men but lives with God ( ). That is, the martyr already has his portion in 'the first resurrection', a resurrection which Hippolytus seems then to have understood as a rising of the soul to heaven at death. This in turn would indicate that neither is the resurrec tion spoken of in the present passage (III.31.2, 3) the resurrection of the body at the last day but rather a rising of the soul to heaven at death, equivalent to the 'bearing aloft' mentioned in the previous line of text. 27 To the statement that the martyr 'rules () over his foes' should be compared Rev. 3.21 (no foe mentioned); 12.11 (the diabolical adversary); Hermas, The Shepherd, Sim. 8.3.6 (the devil); Mand. 12.5.2 (the devil); Martyrdom of Polycarp 19.2 (the unrighteous ruler, either the proconsul or perhaps Satan); Epistle of Vienne and Lyons (Euseb. H.E.) V.l.23, 29, 38, 42 (Satan and sometimes his human underlings); Minucius Felix, Octavius 37 (the human judge); Tertullian, Apologeticum 27 (the demons which inspire persecution against Chris tians). Though these all denote a triumph in the act of martyrdom itself and not in the life beyond, a triumph over demons in the other world as we see mentioned in Comm. Dan. III.31.3 would have been a simple mental extension of the repercussions of the victory accomplished in martyrdom. It would be at the very least incongruous for the martyr to have gained the victory over the dark powers in his death only to be stymied by them immediately after death and subjected to their captivity for the duration until the bodily resurrection. As we have already seen, Hippolytus himself says in On the Great Song fragm 1 that Christ has upset the dominion of death, making the once conquered man lord () over Satan who had conquered him. We may conclude that especially because Hippolytus is envisioning the situation of the martyr in his analogy with Daniel in the lions' den he is envisioning an ascent out of hades that will be virtually immediate, for no 'corruption' will be found in the martyr. It would seem then that

112

C. E. HILL

it is merely his desire to draw an analogy between the story of Daniel in the lion's den and the contemporary situation which prompts Hippolytus even to mention a 'sojourn' in hades. The point would still seem to be that the righteous, with the spotlight on the martyrs who are faithful unto death, will not be held in hades but are able to elude the powers which rule there. Richard continues by citing from the Blessings of Moses28 a comment on Dt. 33.18. In the French translation of Maries from the Georgian and Armenian this comment reads, 'Et Mose dit: Sois joyeux, Zbulon, en ta sortie.. .parce que ceux qui sortent de ce monde-ci en tat de saintet deviennent joyeux cause de l'esprance de la rsurrection des morts. Et ceux qui dans ce golfes du Pre ont trouv le repos, voici qu'ils sont des fils de rsurrection qui sont prts hriter l'incorruptible ternit dans le Paradis de dlices'. According to L. Maris the word translated 'golfes' might have been in the original 29 and can mean 'bay' or 'gulf, or it can mean 'bosom'. In Richard's citation of this text, not only does he opt for the latter meaning but he translates with the singular 'sein'. 3 0 Moreover, at this point in his citation he inserts an explanatory parenthesis, '(le sein d'Abraham)', presumably to effect a parallel with the doctrine of the De Universo which uses the title 'bosom of Abraham' for the compartment of the righteous in hades. It should be pointed out, however, that Hippolytus is expounding the blessing of Moses on Zebulon from Dt. 33.18 and that in doing so he refers, in the previous section, to Jacob's blessing on Zebulon in Gen. 49.13: 'Zebulon shall dwell on the coast, and he shall be by a haven of ships, and shall extend to Sidon'. Hippolytus then says that the Lord is the 'harbour' and the individual churches are the 'ships'. But he has also referred the reader to his comments on Jacob's blessing in the first book of his work. In this book (which is extant in Greek) Hippolytus explains this blessing by saying that the gentiles, storm-tossed by tribulations, have found anchorage and have taken refuge in harbours
( , that is, * ,
. It would seem

that the 'golfes' of the Father are none other than the churches of God. The words and are used of the churches and it is easily possible that (if in fact this was the Greek word used) could have been so used as well. Alternatively, since Hippolytus does feel at liberty to vary his metaphor, the 'bays' of the Father could mean,

HADES OF HIPPOLYTUS OR TARTARUS OF TERTULLIAN?

113

in a less concrete sense, simply His places of safe refuge wherein the churches, as ships, find repose.31 But, in any case, the reference is plainly not to the bosom of Abraham as a compartment of the dead in hades. Not only do the 'bosoms' or 'bays' belong to the Father and not to Abraham but this is transparently a continuation of the nautical imagery Hippolytus has been using. How much more intelligible if we understand the whole: 'He says "rejoice, Zebulon, in your going-out", because those who are departing this world in a state of holiness become joyous because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead. And those who have found repose in the bays of the Father [the churches?] behold that they are of the "sons of the resurrection", who are ready to inherit the incorruptible eternity in the paradise of delights'. Hippolytus is speaking all the way through of living Christians who are about to depart this life. This would place their inheriting of paradise not at a distant pole but imminent in relation to their deaths. An entry into paradise at death is contemplated by Hippolytus elsewhere, in his Comm. Prov. on Prov. 30.28, for the thief on the cross. 32 And, that the soul on its taking leave of the body participates in incorruption is stated by him in no uncertain terms in a fragment from his Discourse on the Resurrection and Incorruption. Finally, Richard alludes to the notion found in Antichrist 45 that John the Baptist carried on his role as forerunner even into hades where he announced the soon arrival of Christ there. 33 Referring to the words of Antichrist 46, 'But since the Saviour was the first fruits of the resurrection of all men, it was necessary that only the Lord be raised from the dead', Richard concludes, 'Seul le Christ, prmices de notre rsurrection, pouvait devancer l'heure du jugement'. But here the resurrection of which Christ was the first fruits and even yet the sole participant is the resurrection of the body. The closing lines of Antichr. 45, however, tell us the content of John the Baptist's good news in hell, which was that 'the Saviour was about to descend there, the one who ransoms the souls of the saints out of the hand of death'. 34 I believe we may conclude with certainty that none of Richard's parallels to the doctrine of the intermediate state found in De Universo are real ones. On the contrary we have even found in some instances further confirmation that Hippolytus's view contradicted this doctrine. This divergence of the view of De Universo from that of Hippolytus, then, may be approached in a number of ways but the amount of reflection obviously underpinning each view must rule out a theory of

114

E HILL

unconscious inconsistency. Hippolytus could have changed his mind. But no other work attributed to Hippolytus seems to teach the doctrine of the De Universo, and its doctrine is very mature, full and rather dogmatically set out and there is no hint anywhere of a conscious retrac tion. Much more likely, on the grounds of content alone, is the supposi tion that De Universo is not the work of Hippolytus at all. It should be recalled that the fragment was added to the accepted works of Hippolytusin no manuscript does it bear his nameat a time when authorship of the Refutation of All Heresies was still in doubt. 3 5 Previously the Refutation had been attributed to Origen and efforts were then being made to establish it as Hippolytan. The author of the Refutation, in book X, mentions another work of his composed under the title . The statue of Hippolytus also includes as a work of his one ' [] . Hence our fragment, which presents a notion of the afterlife and judgment quite foreign to that of Origen, if it could be understood as the work mentioned by the statue and the author of the Refutation, would provide strong evidence against Origenic authorship of the latter work. 3 6 Since the middle of the present century, maintaining the Hip polytan authorship of the fragment has been high on the agenda of those who could not accept Nautin's thesis that De Universo, the Refutation and the Chronicon are the works of one Josipe of Rome. The strongest link between De Universo and the Refutation would seem to be the fact just mentioned that Hippolytus, according to the evidence of the Refutation and the statue, did compose a work with a title similar to that which heads the fragment of De Universo found in 11 the Sacra Parallela. Yet it is also a fact that by the time of Hippolytus a good many Christian treatises 'against the Greeks' had been circulated and we may scarcely doubt that some had borne titles similar to that of the Hippolytan tract in question. Eusebius tells of two lost works of Justin Martyr, one entitled " (H.E. IV. 18.2) and another (H.E. IV. 18.5). Melito wrote a (H.E. IV.26.2), Apolinarius five books ' (H.E. IV.27.1), Miltiades a ' as well as an to the secular rulers on behalf of the christian philosophy (H.E. V.17.5) and Tatian a ' (H.E. IV.29.7) which has survived. Irenaeus wrote a lost treatise ' entitled (H.E. V.26.1). Clement of Alexandria in Stromateis IV.i.2.1 promises if not a separate book at least a future section of the Stromateis devoted to

HADES OF HIPPOLYTUS OR TARTARUS OF TERTULLIAN?

115

' . Speaking of the time around the reign of Septimius Severus, Eusebius also testifies that there were 'countless' treatises by orthodox Christians to which their authors (due perhaps to risks to open professions of Christianity) did not attach their names (H.E. V.27.1). Nor is our confidence that the fragment from the Sacra Parallela is from a work which originally bore the title strengthened by the recognition that in every manuscript containing any part of our fragment in which it bears this or a similar title the fragment is attributed to Josephus the Jewa mystery still unsolved. 38 But even on the premise that this was its original title, the factors just stated make it very possible that another or might have been written by someone other than Hippolytus. Another link between the De Universo and the Refutation sometimes thought to be sure evidence of common authorship is the injunction to the Greeks in the last chapter of book X of the latter work which con tains a description of tartarus thought to resemble the language of the De Universo.19 Though tartarus and its angels appear a few more times in the writings of Hippolytus (tartarus: Ref. 1.23 [citing Hesiod]; IV.32 [another citation]; X.30; : Comm. Dan. 11.29.11; Ref. X.30), De Universo itself does not mention tartarus, the abode of fallen angels, by name. And even if the descriptions of the lower regions in De Universo and tartarus in the Refutation are thought similar in other respects (which may be reduced to the one comment that they are both places of darkness in the underworld!), the Refutation never asserts that righteous as well as unrighteous dwell either in tartarus or hades. II But if our fragment is not from the pen of Hippolytus, whence has it come? Photius says that what is apparently our fragment had been assigned by some to Josephus the Jew, by others to Justin, by others to Irenaeus, and finally, in the margin of a copy he used, to Gaius of Rome (whom he favours). In the various recensions of the Sacra Parallela, quotations from it appear under the names Josephus, Irenaeus and Meletius of Antioch. In the copy used by John Philoponus it is attributed to Josephus and the fragments discovered by J. W. Malley in the Chronicon of George Harmartolus (Coislin 305) also bear Josephus's name. 4 0

116

C. E. HILL

Of these candidates, Eusebius tells us concerning Justin's ' that 'after a long and expanded argument about very many things inquired into both by Christians and the philosophers of the Greeks, he discourses on the nature of demons...' (H.E. IV. 18.3). The fragment De Universo begins with the words , indicating that the original contained a section devoted to the subject. And there are two places in the Dialogue with Trypho (chs. 5, 80) which might indicate that the version of the intermediate state Justin entertained would have been consistent with that of our fragment. Yet there is another author who has expressed himself in a way so resembl ing the doctrine of the De Universo as to invite a more careful com parison. Schmidt had already perceived in 1919 that 'Diese Schilderung des Hades und die Annahme eines Wartezustandes fr alle Seelen entspricht vollstndig den Gedanken Tertullians...soda man bei der Echtheit glauben mte, da Hippolyt unter dem Einflsse Tertullians seine Idee von dem Descensus gendert htte'. 41 Schmidt went on to express his doubt that the fragment was truly Hippolytus's but did not make any more of the correspondences with Tertullian. But there are in fact quite a number of correspondences with the views of Tertullian and many of these are at points which find no parallel in the known works of Hippolytus. The initial difficulty with a hypothesis which would propose Tertullian as author of our fragment is that the fragment only exists in Greek. This difficulty, however, cannot be a decisive one for we know that several of his treatises were published as well in Greek.42 The fragment from the Sacra Parallela treats three topics, namely, hades (or the intermediate state), the resurrection and the last judgment, and its first line indicates that the immediately preceding section of the original treated the subject of demons. Thus we know it dealt with at least these four topics (evidently in a quite methodical manner). John Philoponus indicates that it spoke concerning the division of the waters during the creation recorded in Gen. 1. The four fragments discovered and published by Malley give samples of the polemics of the work aimed at the delusions of Greek philosophy, particularly those of Plato. Taking first the section on hades or the intermediate state, there is, as Schmidt saw, virtually full agreement between the doctrine of this fragment and the teaching of Tertullian (see especially De An. 7; 35.3; 53.5, 6; 55-58), whereas, as we have seen, there is a marked contrast to be found in a comparison with that of Hippolytus. First we may men-

HADES OF HIPPOLYTUS OR TARTARUS OF TERTULLIAN?

117

tion the conception of hades as a prison. De Universo calls hades a 'guard-house' () for souls, warded by an archangel and his ; the unrighteous are dragged downward as by the angels of punishment ([I] 11. 6, 7, 20, 33-35).43 For Tertullian too hades is a prison (career, De An. 7.4, 35.3, 55.3, 58.8) where souls are kept under guard (custodiae, De An. 7.3) from which even the righteous will not be released until 'the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection' (De An. 35.3). Though De Universo*s representation of the angels of hades may be thought to echo statements of Hippolytus (see Comm. Dan. 11.29.11 and Ref. X.30, where angels of Tartarus are referred to), it is also very consonant with statements of Tertullian, who mentions an evocatoris animarum, 'Mer cury of the poets' (De An. 53.6) and an angelus exsecutionis who has charge of the souls in the prison of hades (De An. 35.3). This compares favourably with De Universo [I] 11. 19, 20, , . Also common to both Tertullian and the fragment is the view that gehenna is a fiery reservoir at the lowest reaches of hades preserved for the punishment of the last day but on whose banks, close enough to feel a scorching foretaste of their ultimate ruin, the ungodly already are deposited (De Universo [I] 11. 9-11, 37-43; De Res. Cam. 17; Apol. 47). There is also the characteristic expression that all men, righteous as well as unrighteous, are 'detained' in hades until the resurrection. De Universo uses the words ([I] 11. 2, 18), and ^ [I] 1. 48); Tertullian uses the words detinatur (De An. 7.3), reservatur (De An. 7.3) sequestrari (De An. 55.5) and retinen (De An. 57.1) for the souls in hades. In De An. 55.5 Tertullian speaks of his position that omnem animam apud inferos sequestrari in diem domini, which should be com pared to the almost identical summary statement in De Universo,
, , ...

Finally, on the intermediate state, there is De Universo'^ use of the name 'bosom of Abraham' from Luke 16.22, 23 as a technical term to designate the lightsome compartment of the righteous in hades ([I] 1. 33). Not even in Irenaeus, who may have held to such an interpretation of the gospel passage, do we find the term used in this way. It is, more importantly, completely foreign to the writings of Hippolytus (recall the false parallel cited above). For Tertullian, however, this uncommon technical use of 'bosom of Abraham' for the region of the blessed in an

118

C. E. HILL

underground hades is standard and is assumed in three separate treatises (De An. 7.4, (9.8), 55.2, (57.11); On Idolatry 13; Adv. Marc. III.24; IV.34). 44 There is, it must be said, one important feature of Tertullian's view of the intermediate state which does not surface in De Universo, and that is the special dispensation allowed to the martyrs to enter heaven at death and before the resurrection of the body. 4 5 De Universo does not mention any such provision and this might well constitute a real dif ference with Tertullian. It is, however, to be remembered that Tertullian himself often omits to mention this exception for the martyrs, makes dogmatic statements which would seem not to regard any such exception 46 and can summarize his view of the intermediate state by say ing, 'we have established the position that every soul (omnem animam) is detained in safe keeping in Hades until the day of the Lord' (De An. 55.5). On the matter of the last judgment there is one interesting trait peculiar to Tertullian which also shows up in De Universo. It is habitual for Tertullian in apologetic treatises to place Christ as final judge in con traposition to Minos and Rhadamanthus of the Greeks: 'Poets also, trembling not before the judgment-seat of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the unexpected Christ!' (De Spectaculis 30). See also Ad Nationes 1.19; Apologeticum 23. Hippolytus, on the other hand, never does this. Yet it is done by the author of De Universo: '...He cometh as Judge whom we call Christ. For it is not Minos and Rhadamanthys that are to judge (the world), as ye fancy, O Greeks, but He whom God the Father hath glorified, of whom we have spoken elsewhere more in par ticular...' ([Ill] 11. 79-83). What is more, in De Universo this is later fol lowed by a reference to I Cor. 2.9, just as Tertullian does in De Spectaculis 30. There is the further corresponding opposition of 'punishment' to 'bliss', in De Universo (III) 11. 89, 90 ( and ) and in Apologeticum 47 (poena and amoenitas). We shall not treat the fragments preserved by Malley beyond remark ing that there seems to be nothing in them which would forbid ascrip tion to either Hippolytus or Tertullianboth authors would have been capable of the anti-Hellenic rhetoric with which these fragments bristle. We may, however, examine with great profit the summary and short extract preserved by Photius. Photius speaks of what is apparently our work under the title , but says it is found in other copies as and in others .

HADES OF HIPPOLYTUS OR TARTARUS OF TERTULLIAN?

119

In his day it existed in two booklets (). The extract has to do with the author's view of the composition of man, which is, that man is formed by a synthesis of the four elements. Photius adds that the fourth element, , is also called by the author. He then gives the extract: Gathering up the greater part of this [i.e., the spirit] He moulded it together with the body and furnished a course for it through every member and joint. That which he moulded together with the body, and penetrating through all, was stamped with the same image of the visible body, but in nature being colder than the three through which the body was put together.47 Remarkably, this finds almost a mirror image in De Anima 9.7: For only carefully consider, after God hath breathed upon the face of man the breath of life, and man had consequently become a living soul, surely that breath must have passed through the face at once into the interior structure, and have spread itself throughout all the spaces of the body; and as soon as by the divine inspiration it had become condensed, it must have impressed itself on each internal feature, which the condensation had filled in, and so have been, as it were, congealed in shape.48 Tertullian also calls the soul the 'little image' (sigiIlaria) which moves and animates the surface of the body (De An. 6.3). The shape (effigies) of the soul is none other than the shape of the human body it motivates (De An. 9; cf. De Res. Cam. 53). Though a partial authority might have been Irenaeus (A.H. II. 19.6), the exceptional nature of this idea is attested by Waszink: 'To my knowledge, Tert.'s purely materialistic conception of the body-like shape of the soul is only shared by his imitator Vincentius Victor' 49 (Tertullian in De Res. Carn. 17 labels the 'common opinion' the position that the soul is incorporeal). That Ter tullian and the author of De Universo both give expression to such a view and that both expressions occur in nearly identical accounts of the original inspiration of Adam is too coincidental not to require some theory of dependence. On the other hand, Hippolytus is not known to have said anything similar about the formation of Adam or to have endorsed the corporeity of the soul, though he mentions this Stoic doc trine in Refutation 1.18; indeed, this doctrine does not comport well with his statement elsewhere that souls released from the body are invisi ble (Res. and Incorr.). The equation of , with (spiritus and anima) which accord ing to Photius is made by the author of De Universo is made and

120

C. E. HILL

defended by Tertullian in De Anima 5.2, 3 (also 10.8, 9, 11.1) with the aid of the Stoics, who speak 'almost in our own terms'. I have not been able to observe a similar equation in Hippolytus. As to the idea, con tained in Photius's extract, of the soul being colder than the other elements (earth, fire, water), it may be remarked that although Ter tullian does not repeat this specification in De Anima (neither am I able to find it in Hippolytus), it is a peculiarly Stoic idea (Ref. 1.18; De An. 25.6; 26.3) and is thus likely to have been picked up by Tertullian, whose psychology is so greatly indebted to the Stoics, especially if this came at an early stage in his theological development. Photius also tells us that the treatise known to him as De Universo confutes Plato and proves that Alcinus (certainly a mistake for Albinus) 50 speaks irrationally and falsely . Hippolytus in the Refutation shows himself a capable critic of Plato but neither in this work nor in any other does he ever mention Albinus, the second-century a.d. proponent of Middle Platonism. On the other hand, the work of Albinus we know exercised a sizable influ ence on Tertullian. Waszink concludes that Albinus, whom Tertullian mentions by name twice in De Anima (28.1, 29.4), provided Tertullian with knowledge of 'the most important particulars of the [Platonic] doctrine of metempsychosis ( , invariability in the total number of souls, interim of a thousand years, metempsychosis as a retribution in the beyond)'. 5 1 Danilou adds that Tertullian's Platonic source for the confuted idea that animation takes place at birth when the infant draws its first breath, was most likely Albinus, who defends what is effectively this view in his work Didaskalikos.52 It would thus have been very suitable for Tertullian to have taken up the pen against Albinus along with Plato on the topics of the soul, matter and resurrection. One more remark by Photius is worthy of comment. Photius says of the author of De Universo that
, ,

. But if the a u t h o r of De

Universo spoke as Hippolytus spoke, it is somewhat difficult to believe Photius could describe this author as speaking 'in irreproachable language' of 'Christ's ineffable generation from the Father'. Hip polytus, ever since his personal debate with Callistus, has been called subordinationist (or, by Callistus, ditheist [Ref. IX.7]), and though such judgments have at times been unjustifiably harsh, there is ample room

HADES OF HIPPOLYTUS OR TARTARUS OF TERTULLIANO

121

in his Christology for a post-Nicene theologian, especially one of the calibre and dogmatic precision of Photius (whose great work was a defense of the Eastern doctrine of the Son's procession from the Father) to find fault. This is so especially if the Hippolytan authorship of the Contra Noetum is admitted. 53 But even Richard, who rejects this treatise as Hippolytan, on the basis of the Refutation and the commentaries feels constrained to characterize Hippolytus as a concrete and not a very gifted metaphysical thinker, for whom 'la gnration du Verbe tait lie de quelque faon la cration. 54 On the other hand, while this remark of Photius on the author's view of the procession of the Son may not point distinctly in the direction of Tertulliano thought on the matter, which never fully extricated itself from subordinationist language inherited from earlier Christian apologists, a high assessment of the orthodoxy of expressions drawn from him might at least be more believable (see e.g., Apol. 21; Adv. Prax. 8; Adv. Marc. III.6). It would be tempting to propose that ours is a fragment of the lost work On Paradise by Tertullian. Tertullian alludes to this work in De Anima 55.5, describing it thus: Habes etiam de paradiso a nobis libellum, quo constituimus omnem animam apud inferos sequestrari in diem domini. In other words this lost book establishes the very position which a section of De Universo establishes. Though the proof for the proposition that every soul is detained in hades until the day of the Lord constitutes only part of our fragment, its remaining contents would be easily consonant with a treatise entitled De Paradiso. This reference in De Anima to De Paradiso might also explain why the De Anima of all Tertulliano treatises bears the most resemblance to De Universo. The nature of many of these resemblances is such that De Anima could often be seen as complementing the teaching of the earlier De Universo.55 An objection to this theory might be that the description of Photius and the fragments uncovered by Malley do not immediately suggest a work whose main object is an explication and defense of Tertulliano understanding of paradise, though given Tertulliano ability to treat a subject broadly and discursively this objection cannot be a particularly strong one. In Against Marcion V.12 he claims for the lost work the merit of its having discussed 'all that the subject [i.e. paradise] admits of, and such would certainly have included discussions of the origin of the soul and its future existence, the resurrection, judgment and the hereafter as well as an analysis and refutation of false views seen as coming ultimately from Plato (cf. De An. 23.5, 6). Yet it is admittedly odd, on

122

E HILL

the present supposition, that Photius does not mention the specific material on paradise which Tertulliano work must have contained. Ter tullian describes the treatise as a 'small book' (libellus) whereas Photius knows it in an edition of two 'small books' (XoytStoc). Could it be that the second of these known to Photius is Tertulliano (perhaps De Paradiso with the first pages missing) and had at some time been bound to another work independently authored and known to someone as Josephus0 De Universo! Ill We are left with many unresolved questions about the fragment under review. But I believe we have found more than sufficient grounds for dismissing its confident ascription to Hippolytus so commonly made by recent scholarship. De Universo reveals a view of the intermediate state as well as details of other anthropological and eschatological tenets so like those of Tertullian as practically to necessitate the conclusion that it was penned under his influence if not by him personally. The only other plausible thesis is that it was written earlier by someone who would profoundly influence Tertullian. But the only non-biblical author capable of leaving such an impression on Tertullian was Irenaeus, a name which is in fact thrown up in some later manuscripts of the Sacra Parallela and which had been suggested to Photius. And in some points, such as the shape of the soul and the conviction that hades will be the intermediate abode for all the dead until the resurrection, the doctrine of De Universo could veritably be called Irenaean. The almost stylistic details common to De Universo and Tertullian and absent from Irenaeus, however, such as the technical use of the term 'bosom of Abraham' to denote a compartment in hades, the picture of hades as a prison and use of the word 'detain', the contrast of Christ to Minos and Rhadamanthus, and the descriptions of the original inspiration of Adam, shift the balance decisively from Irenaeus to the great North African.
NOTES

The text is found in Karl Holl, Fragmente vornicanischer Kirchenvater aus den Sacra Parallela, U neue folge V (Leipzig, 1901) See also the variants published by Harold Cherniss, 'The So-called Fragment of Hippolytus, ', Classical Philology XXIV (1929), which belong to the Baroccian ms 26, the notices of Photius, Bibliotheca, Codex

HADES OF HIPPOLYTUS OR TARTARUS OF TERTULLIANO

123

48 ( G CHI, cols 84, 85) and John Philoponus, De Opificio Mundi, III 16, edited by G Reichardt (Lipsiae, 1897), pp 154, 155, and the new fragments in W J Malley, 'Four Unedited Fragments of the De Universo of the Pseudo-Josephus Found in the Chronicon of George Hamartolus (Coishn 305)', JTS 16 (1965), pp 13-25 2 The most notable dissent is from Nautin, Hippolyte et Josipe, (Pans, 1947), pp 7179 Nautin's well-known thesis is that De Universo, the Refutation and the Chronicon are the work of the same author, an otherwise unknown Josipe of Rome I have been unable to consult the view of V Loi, 'L'identit letteraria di Ippolito di Roma', in Ricerche su Ippolito, Studia Ephemendis "Augustinianum" 13 (Rome, 1977), pp 67-88, which, I am told, posits the existence of two contemporaries each named Hippolytus For the consensus see e g , C Wordsworth, St Hippolytus and the Church of Rome in the Earlier Part of the Third Century, second edition (London, Oxford, Cambridge, 1880), pp 211216, Adolf Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius (Leipzig, 1893), part one, pp 622, 623, Otto Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur (Darmstadt, 1962 reprint of the 1914 second edition), vol 2, pp 571, 572, Johannes Quasten, Patrology, (Westminster, Maryland, 1984 reprint of 1950 original), vol 2, pp 195, 196, M Richard, 'Hippolyte de Rome (saint)', in Dictionnaire de Spiritualit, vol 7 (Pans, 1969), cols 542, 565-568, Berthold Altaner and Alfred Stuiber, Patrologie Leben, Schriften und Lehre der Kirchenvater, eighth edition (Freiburg/Basel/Vienna, 1978), pp 167, 168 The use of this adjective for any work attributed to Hippolytus is liable to draw argument from some corner I have in mind at least the Commentary on Daniel, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist and, with two or three reservations, the rest of the works treated as genuine by Richard, 'Hippolyte' (see previous note) 4 We have as a forerunner here Carl Schmidt, Gesprche Jesu mit semen Jungern nach der Auferstehung, TU 43 (1919), Exkurs II, who on the basis of this incompatiblity alone questioned the Hippolytan authorship of the fragment (p 512), though, to my knowledge, his assessment has gone virtually unnoticed by subsequent scholars Nautin, Josipe, 98, sees only that 'la description luxuriante des fins dernires qui se ht dans le traite Sur l'Univers contraste avec la reserve constante d'Hippolyte sur le mme sujet' 5 Greek texts of Hippolytus, unless otherwise noted, will be taken from Hippolytus Werke, GCS I, part 1, Die Kommentare zu Daniel und zum Hohenliede, edited by G Nath Bonwetsch, part 2, Kleinere exegetische und homiletische Schriften, edited by Hans Achehs (Leipzig, 1897) 6 , , , , , , The citation is made by Theodoret Probably the subject is the song of Moses, Hippolytus's commentary on the Song of Songs appears to be another work See Achehs, GCS I, 2, lv, Richard, 'Hippolyte' cols 536, 539 7 Schmidt, Gesprche, 509, 'Hier wird die des Protoplasten bereits als vollzogen gedacht'
3

124
8

C E HILL

E g , Odes of Solomon 17 10-12, 15, 42 11, 14-20, Ignatius, Magnesians 9 2, Hermas, The Shepherd, Sim 9 15, 16 9 Traites D'Hippolyte sur David et Goliath, sur le Cantique des Cantiques et sur l'Antchrist, CSCO 263 (text), 264 (translation), translated by Gerard Garitte (Louvain, 1965) 10 , , ' "" , " [] , " 1 ' Though he elsewhere (Blessing of Moses see Maurice Bnere, Louis Maries and B-Ch Mercier, eds , Hippolyte de Rome, Sur les Benedictions d'Isaac, de Jacob et de Mose, PO 27 (Pans, 1957), parts 1, 2, 162) can apply the words of Isa 49 9 to those liberated in this life Interestingly, Clement of Alexandria prefaces his treatment of Christ's preaching in hades by citing Isa 49 7-9 m Strom VI vi 44 2, with which cf Methodius (?) In Job (G Bonwetsch, GCS 27 [1917] 517) See also the verbal parallels between Comm Dan IV 33 4 and Gospel of Nicodemus V 2 2 Cf Hermas, The Shepherd, Sim 9 28 3,4, where those who have laid down their lives for the sake of the name of the Son of God and those who did so cheerfully 13 , ' , ' 14 Schmidt, Gesprche, 508, cites Hermas, Sim 9 15 4, Ignatius, Philad 9 1, Mart Polyc 19 2 as parallels 15 Richard, 'Hippolyte', col 533 Alfred Stuiber, Refrigenum Interim Die Vorstellungen vom Zwischenzustand und die frhchristliche Grabeskunst, Theophania 11 (Bonn, 1957), pp 63-67, is of a similar conviction 16 Richard, 'Hippolyte', col 566 17 M Richard, 'Les Fragments du commentaire de S Hippolyte sur les Proverbes de Salomon', Le Museon 79 (1966), 63 18 A reading, however, that would at least have a precedent in Irenaeus (AH V 31 2) 19 With this loosing of in hades compare On the Great Song fragm 1 and Comm Dan IV 33 4 cited above The exegetical chain has at this point , Cf from Isa 49 9 (though the LXX has ) in Comm Dan IV 33 4 cited above 20 Cf On the Great Song fragm 1, cited above 21 Maurice Bnere, Louis Maries and B-Ch Mercier, eds , Hippolyte de Rome, Sur les Benedictions d'Isaac, de Jacob et de Mose, PO 27 (Pans, 1957), parts 1, 2, 171 22 [2] , , , ' , [3] , , ' 23 "" , 24 So Stuiber, Refrigenum, 66

HADES OF HIPPOLYTUS OR TARTARUS OF TERTULLIANO

125

25 'Les mes des martyrs sont donc reues, comme celles des mchants, par les anges tortionnaires' (col. 566). Stuiber does not take this into account.
26
27

, '

The word is probably used in this sense of an ascension of the soul to God at death by Ignatius in Romans 4 3. Cf also Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 2 28 Bnere, Maries and Mercier, Benedictions, p. 177. 29 See Maries's note 379, Benedictions, 246 30 This is defensible given the peculiar nature of this Greek noun which allows the plural sometimes to be used for the singular; see Lk. 16.22, 23 (sing and pi ) and Blass, Debrun 9 ner and Funk 1415 But if the original were , why would the Georgian translator not translate with a singular as does Richard? 31 See also his comments on Gen 49.13 in GCS I, 2, pp 61, 62 where Zebulon's portion by the sea is said to depict the calling of the Gentiles. 32 Richard, 'Proverbes des Salomon' Le Muson 79 (1966), p. 92. 33 An idea known to Origen, In Lucam Homiliae IV; In Evangelium Johannem II 37 Cf also Dialogue of Adamantius 1.26.
34

. Cf. On the Great Song, fragm I, cited above 35 Though some as early as Thomas Hearne's day, writing in 1720, had ascribed it to Hippolytus, A Collection of Curious Discourses, 2 vols (London, 1771), vol I, vu, vol II, 394, note 1 36 See J H. MacMahon's introductory article to his translation of the Refutation in the ANFedition, vol. V, pp. 5, 6, where he indicates that even at the time of his writing some critics still assigned the work to Origen; Wordsworth, St Hippolytus, pp. 7-15. 37 For some other correspondences between De Universo and the Refutation, but not the other works of Hippolytus, see Nautin, Josipe, pp. 74-78 38 Though see the suggestion of B. Botte, 'Note sur l'auteur du De universo attribue a saint Hippolyte', RTAM 18 (1951), especially 13 39 See Wordsworth, 5/ Hippolytus, pp. 210-212; Nautin, Josipe, 74. 40 For references see note 1 41 Schmidt, Gesprche, 512 42 At least the Apologeticum, De Spectaculis, De Baptismo, De Virginibus Velandis and probably also the lost work On Ecstasy, see Quasten, Patrology, II, pp 260, 317 43 In refenng to De Universo the Ime numbers refer to those in Holl's edition (see note 1) I have added, for convenience, Roman numeral in brackets which correspond to sections (marked in the English translation in ANF vol V) of the work associated with the topics of [I] hades; [II] resurrection; [III] judgment. 44 Only in the last-mentioned place does Tertullian draw a distinction, after close attention to the text of Luke 16 and the comments of Marcion, between Abraham's bosom and inferus: Aliud enim inferi, ut puto, aliud quoque Abrahae sinus. As his constant teaching elsewhere and even in the rest of the chapter (Apud inferos autem de eis dictum est: Habent illic Moysen et prophetas, audiant illos), however, makes clear, the distinction merely means Abraham's bosom is superimposed upon the region of the wicked, both places being in hades. See also De Jejunus 16. See Jean Danilou, A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicaea, vol 3, The Origins of Latin Christianity, translated by David Smith and John Austin Baker (London/Philadelphia, 1980), pp. 390-395

126
45

E HILL

See De An 55, De Res Cam 43, Scorpiace 12 'Hades is not in any case opened for (the escape of) any soul' (De An 57), 'For who is there that will not desire to continue his life by a happy escape from death without encountering too that Hades which will exact the very last farthing' (De Re Cam 42) 47 , [ ] , , , that is, earth, fire and water 48 Recogita enim, cum deus flasset in faciem homim flatum vitae, et factus esset homo in animam vivam, totus utique, per faciem statim flatum ilium in interiora transmissum et per universa corporis spatia diffusum simulque divina aspiratione densatum omni intus linea expressum esse, quam densatus impleverat, et velut in forma gelasse (The text is from J Waszink, Quinti Sept imi Florent is Tertulhani De Anima [Amsterdam, 1947], Cf 14 4, 5)
46 49

Waszink, De Anima, 177 Botte, 'Note', 7, Malley, 'Fragments', 18 5 Waszink, De Anima, 42* 52 Damelou, Or Lai Chr , 225 53 Quasten, Patrology, II, pp 199, 200, who approves Callistus's charge of ditheism' 54 Richard, 'Hippolyte', col 546, see col 547 as well 55 This could explain the lack in De Universo of a provision for the martyrs to enter heaven, a concession clearly made late in the game by Tertullian In De Anima Tertullian would seem to give no place to the Stoic notion that the soul is of a colder substance than the other elements This would mark a retreat from a position adopted in De Universo
50

19 Grange Road, Cambridge, England

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.