Rufinus’s “other” citation of the pericope adulterae – against Jerome

Rufinus’s knowledge of the pericope adulterae (= PA) is usually cited in connection with his translation of Eusebius’s Church History, where he appears to have changed Papias’s reference to a woman “accused of many sins” to an “adulterous” woman, presumably under the influence of the PA found in John.

But Rufinus cites the PA in another context that is potentially revealing of Jerome’s own ambiguous connection with the story. 1 In his Apology against Jerome (401), Rufinus takes his erstwhile friend Jerome to task for the vicious accusations he has lodged against fellow Christians for Origenism, while failing to acknowledge his own record of promoting Origen. He then cites the story of Jesus and the adulteress (which he oddly calls “a parable”) to demonstrate the proper response of a convicted conscience, ironically displayed by the Jewish accusers:

“There is a parable of the Gospel which illustrates this. A woman taken in adultery was brought before our Lord by the Jews, so that they might see what judgment he would pronounce according to the law. He, the merciful and pitying Lord, said: ‘He that is without sin among you let him first cast a stone at her.’ And then, it is said, they all departed. The Jews, impious and unbelieving though they were, yet blushed through their own consciousness of guilt; since they were sinners, they would not appear publicly as executing vengeance on sinners. And the robber upon the cross, said to the other robber who was hanging like him on a cross, and was blaspheming, “Dost not thou fear God, seeing we are in the same condemnation?” But we condemn in others the things of which we ourselves are conscious; yet we neither blush like the Jews nor are softened like the robber.” (Against Jerome 1.44; NPNF 2.3, 459) 2

Rufinus’s reference is of particular significance because the work in which it is found is intended for Jerome, another writer who cites the PA and presumably included it in his Vulgate revision. Nevertheless, if Rufinus alludes to the Vulgate version, the connection is obscure at best. In favor of the allusion is the fact that the woman is actively “brought before” Jesus “so that they might see what judgment he would pronounce according to the law,” suggesting that the intent is to test Jesus against the Law of Moses (as it is in John). Yet Rufinus does not explicitly mention a “test” and his account seems somewhat abstracted from the context of John, where the antagonists are identified specifically as the scribes and Pharisees. Rufinus rather identifies the antagonists simply as “the Jews.”

Much more palpable is the connection with Didymus’s account, which, like that of Rufinus, identifies the antagonists as “the Jews.” The connection is especially strong in the latter half of Didymus’s story (lines 10-13):

We find, therefore, 7 in certain gospels [the following story], A woman, it says, was condemned by the Jews for a sin and 8 was being sent to be stoned in the place where that was customary to happen. The saviour, it says, 9 when he saw her and observed that they were ready to stone her, said to those 10 who were about to cast stones, ‘He who has not sinned, let him take a stone and cast it.’ 11 If anyone is conscious in himself not to have sinned, let him take up a stone and smite her. And no one 12 dared. Since they knew in themselves and perceived that they themselves were guilty in some things, they did not 13 dare to strike her.3

Rufinus’s closest parallel with Didymus is found at the end of the story, where we find a warning against judging (an idea that is not explicit in the Johannine version). In both Rufinus and Didymus, the accusers are unexpectedly convicted in their conscience and quickly depart from the scene. We must conclude then that, despite his allusion to details known only in the Johannine story, Rufinus adopts primarily the perspective and emphasis of Didymus’s version.

But perhaps most striking of all is Rufinus’s attribution of the story, not to John’s gospel (as we might expect from a Latin writer writing fifteen years after the Vulgate), but rather to “the Gospel.” Of course, this recalls Didymus’s own attribution of the story to “certain gospels.”

What then shall we make of Rufinus’s puzzling silence about his apparent dependence on details found only in John? Why with the Vulgate so close at hand does he draw such clear parallels with Didymus?

In fact, the links to Didymus are no coincidence. Throughout the Apology, Rufinus repeatedly brings up Jerome’s relationship to Didymus, which he treats as symptomatic of Jerome’s invidious habit of slandering fellow Christians, as Rufinus observes:

“it is habitual to him to disparage all good men, and that, if he can find something to blame in one man after another of those who are highly esteemed and have gained a name in literature, he thinks that he has added to his own reputation.” (Against Jerome 2.43; NPNF 2.3, 480)

And again:

“these invectives of yours are the cause of sadness and confusion to all who fear God, since they see you a prey to this hideous lust of detraction, and me driven to the wretched necessity of recrimination.” (Against Jerome 2.39; NPNF 2.3, 478)

Like Rufinus himself, the esteemed Didymus has suffered from Jerome’s pen the same vituperative attacks for his alleged Origenism. Rufinus reminds Jerome that they both had once claimed Didymus as their mentor, though Jerome has now deserted the teacher he once “praised to the sky”:

“I will therefore set forth a Preface of his by which you may see … how he praises Didymus to the sky, though he has since cast him down even to the infernal region.” (Against Jerome, 2.23; NPNF 2.3, 470)

Rufinus suggests that Jerome had used his relationship with Didymus to advance his career, while quickly dissociating himself when the relationship proved inconvenient:

“He [Jerome] … has not in his whole life stayed more than thirty days at Alexandria where Didymus lived; yet almost all through his books he boasts, at length and at large, that he was the pupil of Didymus the seer, that he had Didymus as his initiator, that is, his preceptor in the holy Scriptures; and the material for all this boasting was acquired in a single month. But I, for the sake of God’s work, stayed six years.” (Against Jerome, 2.12; NPNF 2.3, 466)

According to Rufinus, Jerome has shown more loyalty to the Jewish teachers on whom he relies for his Hebrew translation. Yet in this ironic “parable,” it is the Jews who repent under the Savior’s conviction. So while the Vulgate allusions reflect Rufinus’s context in the Latin church, the parallels with Didymus reflect a last plea to Jerome on behalf of their former friendship.

 

Did Hippolytus cite the long ending of Mark?

Michael Holmes writes in “To Be Continued … The Many Endings of the Gospel of Mark” (2001, p. 19):

the church father Hippolytus (c. 170–236) quotes [Mark] 16:17-18

But as far as I can tell, the citation is not found in the major work of the figure(s) known as Hippolytus. For starters, I checked the indices for the critical editions of Refutatio omnium haeresium (Marcovich, 1986), Kommentar zu Daniel (Bonwetsch and Richard, 2000), De antichristo (Norelli, 1987), Contro Noeto (Simonetti, 2000), De David et de Goliath/De Cantico (Garitte, 1965). There is no citation or even allusion to Mark 16:17-18. What’s going on?

It seems the attribution stems from a rather full citation of Mark 16:17-18 in book 8, chapter 1, paragraph 1 of the fourth-century Apostolic Constitutions (=CA) (8.1.1)

Σημεια δε τοις πιστευσασιν ταυτα παρακολουθησει εν τω ονοματι μου δαιμονια εκβαλουσιν, γλωσσαις λαλησουσιν καιναις, οφεις αρουσιν καν θανασιμον τι πιωσιν ου μη αυτους βλαψει επι αρρωστους χειρας επιθησουσιν και καλως εξουσιν

This occurs in a brief section on the charismatic gifts comprising the first two chapters of book 8 of CA (8.1-2). It is true that CA immediately after contains a reworking of much smaller work known by the similar name, Apostolic Traditions (8.3-45), attributed to an elusive Hippolytus of Rome (on the basis of the famous statue). But it seems precarious at best to attribute the adjacent chapters (8.1-2) to the same author merely because of their placement. This seems to be D. C. Parker’s reasoning when he writes in The Living Text of the Gospels (1997, p. 133)

Hippolytus quotes from verses 17 and 18, in a fragment of a writing on spiritual gifts that is preserved in Apostolic Constitutions 8.1

So the attribution of the citation of the Markan long ending to Hippolytus rests on the placement of anonymous material besides a doubtful attribution (yes, based on the statue) to a figure whose existence is no less obscure than the works attributed to him.

Justin Martyr and the “Western” Text

As the 2015 SBL Annual Meeting approaches, I wanted to post a slightly revised version of the paper I presented at the 2014 meeting, “Justin Martyr: An Early ‘Western’ Witness to the Synoptic Gospels?” The topic was inspired by my attempt to validate the claim that Justin’s biblical citations represent the so-called “Western” text (see the paper for citations). It is well-known that Justin’s biblical citations tend to be highly adapted, at least in relation to our canonical texts. It turns out that some of the more frequently-cited “Western” readings in Justin occur in these highly-adapted texts, three of which are examined in the paper. My observation in the present paper is that, when Justin’s form of citation is compared with the presumed “Western” form as found in D and the Old Latin Gospels, Justin’s form appears to be the more primitive on internal grounds. Justin’s form also tends to appear in the African Old Latin tradition, often presumed to be earlier than the European tradition, which attests the form found in D (however, this historical aspect requires further research). It seems we must allow for greater ambiguity in the direction of influence than is usually acknowledged in assertions that Justin used a “Western” text.

Download Paper

Download Handout