Rufus of Shotep: Homilies on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke

RUFUS OF SHOTEP: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPELS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE Mark Sheridan Keywords: Authors; Bible, Matthew; Bible, Luke; Bishops; Coptic Christian Saints; Coptic language - Sahidic dialect; Coptic Manuscripts; Literature, Coptic; Manuscripts; Scholars; Sermons; Theology. Toward the end of the sixth century in a small town of upper Egypt named SHUTB, Shotep in Coptic or Hypselis in Greek, a nome capital (metropolis) in Upper Egypt near Lycopolis, a bishop named Rufus delivered at least two sets of homilies on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Of these about 120 folios (240 pages) are known to have survived. These are found dispersed in at least nine libraries in Europe and the United States. Rufus had been ordained as a bishop by the Patriarch DAMIAN (569/578-605), who, after a long period of turmoil following the forced exile of the Patriarch THEODOSIUS I (535-567), had succeeded in bringing order to the church in Egypt (Müller 1986). The Church we now call the Coptic Orthodox Church with its separate hierarchy can be said to date from this period, the last quarter of the sixth century. History of discovery and publication In 1956, G. Garitte published an article in which he assembled and listed all the manuscript pages and fragments that could be identified as belonging to the two sets of homilies on Matthew and Luke by Rufus of Shotep as well as all the Coptic or Arabic written references to him and announced his intention to publish this material (Garitte 1956). The original publication by Sheridan in 1998 contained an Introduction, the Coptic Sahidic text, a translation into English and an extensive commentary explaining the relationship of Rufus to the Alexandrine exegetical tradition (see Sheridan 1998 and 2018). I. The exegetical tradition Rufus shows a knowledge not only of specific interpretations stemming from Philo, Origen, and others, but also a knowledge of the rules of interpretation that had been developed over many centuries beginning with the allegorical interpretation of Homer. These include: defectus litterae (or the missing literal sense); the use of similar Scriptural passages to explain a word or image; and the image of the exegete as a wise bee (Proverbs 6:8 LXX). Rufus also makes use of the traditional Greek terminology for knowledge. Making the camel pass through the eye of the needle (an example of his commentary): As noted above, Rufus preached a series of homilies on the Gospel of Matthew. Having arrived at the statement that “John wore clothing made of camel’s hair” (Matthew 3:4), Rufus concluded his explanation as follows (Sheridan 1998, 138-140): “John’s garment is (made) out of camel’s hair. The camel does not split the hoof but it does ruminate (cf. Leviticus 11:37). The law is spiritual but it does not split the hoof, since those who adhere to it adhere to it without discernment. It is about the teaching of these old writings that the expression (i.e., “camel’s hair”) is informing us this (the teaching) from which those ancients were taught, from a writing without discernment, since it is like an unshaped and absurd animal compared to them, that is, the camel. As for this, since it does not split the hoof, so as not to make good sense out of the difficult text, it is this, the thickness of which was made thin, the size of which was reduced, so as to make it pass through the eye of a needle (cf. Matthew 19:24). The new Word, having made worship of this carnal sort, circumcision, times, festivals, the temple, and the worldly altar with its furnishings to come to naught, all these things, he reduced through the spirit to make them enter through the discernment of allegory.” This explanation caused the cataloguer of these manuscripts to exclaim, “strange allegories, incoherent terms.” Yet, from the point of view of the history of exegesis, this interpretation is neither strange nor incoherent but follows well-established rules with a long and venerable history. Here I shall seek to elucidate two of these rules: the first for interpreting Scripture by Scripture and that of the missing literal sense signaling a need for allegorical interpretation; and the second to show how Rufus used the rules to construct his interpretation. a. Interpreting Scripture by means of Scripture Rufus’ basic premise, which is not stated in this passage, is that John the Baptist represents the Old Testament scriptures. In the broader context of the passage Rufus draws a contrast between John’s garment of camel’s hair and the garment of lamb’s wool worn by Jesus referred to in John 19:23. John the Baptist is made to say that he is wearing a camel’s hair garment because the lamb has not yet grown wool so that a lamb’s wool garment could be produced. Implicit here is the symbolism of Christ as the lamb of God. Since Rufus realizes that this reference is obscure, his imaginary hearer is made to object and demand a clearer explanation. The answer is that the camel does not split the hoof but does ruminate. This reference to Leviticus 11:37 in which it is stated that “the camel, because it ruminates but does not split the hoof, is unclean to you,” brings us to the first rule to be elucidated. In the Alexandrian exegetical tradition, it is axiomatic that one should seek the explanation of a term, or a figure in other texts where that same term or figure is used. To the modern interpreter, conditioned as he is to literary genres and different historical contexts, it seems almost capricious to explain a passage in one book by means of a passage having only a slight verbal similarity from another book in a different literary genre written in a different epoch. To the Alexandrian exegete, such a procedure was necessary and absolutely consistent with the basic premise of the unified divine authorship of Scripture. This procedure of explaining Scripture by Scripture is based on the fundamental premise that the Holy Spirit is the true author of the whole Bible. In fact, from a formal point of view, this principle is the same as explaining Homer by Homer, a traditional principle of Alexandrian philology, which, according to Porphyry, goes back to Aristarchus of Samothrace. Similar formulations can be found in the writings of Proclus with reference to explaining Plato and in the writings of Galen with reference to Hippocrates. b. Defectus Litterae Although Origen’s theory and practice probably provide the immediate background necessary for understanding Rufus’ application of the term ἄλογον to the camel (and thus to the Old Testament), it is of interest to note the long history of the idea that on a literal level, a text may lack meaning or that its literal meaning can be absurd. The idea that the Old Testament scriptures are alogon (senseless) when not interpreted in the light of the Logos is obviously Christian, but both the terminology and the notion of defectus litterae have a much older history. Already in the Letter of Aristeas we find the admonition: “For you must not fall into the degrading idea that it was out of regard to mice and weasels and other such things that Moses drew up his laws with such exceeding care. All these ordinances were made for the sake of righteousness to aid the quest for virtue and the perfecting of character.” One cannot avoid the impression that the commentator feels embarrassed by the text. For him the laws of the Pentateuch are the divinely inspired work of Moses, but he cannot imagine that his God would be interested in making laws about mice and weasels, etc. c. Through the eye of the needle To return now to our example text: the thought of the shape and size of a camel finally leads Rufus, by the law of association (interpreting Scripture by Scripture), to think of another mention of the animal in Matthew 19:24, where the question of the possibility of the rich man entering the kingdom of heaven is likened to the possibility of a camel passing through the eye of a needle. Rufus states that the “new Word” reduced the size of the Law and all its institutions so as to make it pass through the eye of the needle: “he reduced them through the spirit to make them enter through the discernment of allegory.” The reference to the spirit is certainly a reference to 2 Corinthians 3:6ff., which becomes clearer as the homily continues. Discernment is what the law lacked (i.e., it did not split the hoof). Allegory is the key to discerning, to seeing beneath the letter to the spiritual meaning of the Law. When the Law is read in its spiritual meaning, it is no longer bulky and misshapen but, being spiritual, can pass through the eye of the needle; that is, it acquires inner coherence and unity. For Rufus, it is the new Word who makes the Scriptures pass through the eye of the needle by means of allegory. For him, it is not just any sort of allegory, but interpretation in terms of the Logos. The term “allegory” is probably the most general and widely used of those expressions used to describe Alexandrian exegetical practice. In the New Testament, Paul uses this expression to describe the story of Sarah and Hagar: atina estin alegoroumena (Galatians 4:24). Thus, Paul provided the principal precedent and justification for the development of the Alexandrian tradition of allegorical interpretation. II. The rhetorical tradition The text-based homily had been established as a distinct literary genre in Greek at least since the time of Origen. In any case, his text-based homilies based on lectio continua are the oldest surviving examples. By “text-based homily” is intended a sermon that offers a series of comments or explanations following the sequence of a Scriptural reading that has already taken place. It is to be distinguished from a thematic or panegyrical sermon. The thematic homily could be based on a Scriptural text, but does not follow the sequence of verses in its development. Conclusion The examples that have been offered of the various rhetorical devices

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.