Exegetical and Rhetorical Appropriations of Scripture in the Homilies of Anastasius Sinaita1

Konstantinos TERZOPOULOS

ἡῥητορικὴἄρα,ὡςἔοικεν,πειθοῦςδημιουργόςἐστιν. Thusrhetoric,itseems,isaproducerofpersuasionforbelief. Socrates in PLATO, Gorgias, 454e-455a. τῆςδὲῥητορικῆςφαντασίαςκάλλιστονἀεὶτὸἔμπρακτονκαὶἐνάληθες. Themostperfecteffectofvisualizationinoratoryisalwaysoneofrealityandtruth. LONGINUS, OntheSublime,xv 8.

INTRODUCTION

As things stand regarding Anastasius Sinaita’s homiletic output, six works are considered authentic while three more have been attributed to him either in the manuscript tradition or – as is the case with one – via patristic testimony. Since the preparation of their critical editions – in one case an editioprinceps – is ongoing, the observations presented in this paper are, hence, provisional and indeed still in-progress. Nevertheless, subsequent to having collected and collated, compared and evaluated over three hundred and forty medieval Greek manuscript witnesses ranging from the ninth to seventeenth centuries containing these homilies – including two palimpsests and a third manuscript from the Sinai new finds – the main threads of Anastasius’ appropriations of Scriptural exegesis and rhetorical style can be roughly sketched. Some prefatory remarks are nonetheless essential to the discussion of the Anastasian homiletic corpus, especially with regards to the exclusion of two works. The opportunity for the disambiguation of a first homily listed among the incertaeoriginis, the unedited Homiliainramospalmarum (CPG 7780), with 1,742 words, has been made possible via its textual style and thematic content. Attributed to Anastasius Sinaita in its sole witness2

1. I would like to thank Joseph Verheyden for the stimulus to produce this paper by inviting me to participate in the colloquium on “Anastasius Sinaita and the Bible” held at the Catholic University of Leuven, 12-13 December 2016. Gratitude must also be directed to Dimitrios Zaganas for reading the first draft and catching fatal errors while offering insights and Daniel Tolan for scrutinizing my translations. 2. The seventeenth-century CantabrigiensisCollegiiS.TrinitatisO.05.36 (1317), Pars 1, fols. 32-35v is, if not a direct copy, at the very least clearly emanated from the same textual tradition as Bodl.Barocc. 197. 440 K. TERZOPOULOS

– the fourteenth-century Ms. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocc. 197 (fols. 344v-348) – all internal signs point to its being a third Homiliain ramospalmarumfrom the pen of Leontius, presbyter of Constantinople (6th c.)3. With regards to a second homily, the Homiliaindefunctos (CPG 7752; 4028; 4029; 4056; BHG 2103u)4, I have not found any evidence to support the manuscript attributions to Anastasius. The style and linguis- tic technique seem more suited to the Ephraem Graecus attribution, as witnessed to in numerous tangled witnesses. The introductory section and last few paragraphs, however, plainly betray a separate Greek literary hand. The textual tradition as witnessed to in the manuscripts reveals two closely related recensions that could possibly be interpreted as distinct translations of a work originally written in another language, say, possibly Ephraem’s Syriac. As is the norm for the Ephraem Graecus corpus, one mystery often leads only to another and, as D. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou has remarked, it is the work of syriacists which shall ultimately be con- clusive5. Furthermore, it is possible that allusions to the Canticuminmortuorum exequiis6 ascribed to a certain Anastasius hymnographer may have played some role in the mistaken identity of its author7. In any event, a close reading of the homily points to its being composed for use on the Saturday before Cheesefare Sunday, as is prescribed in numerous manuscripts; moreover, the oldest extant monastic Typikon bears witness to the same diataxis while also preserving the Ephraem attribution8. The language used is consistent with a fourth- to fifth-century composition, but the obvious occasion of a commemoration of all monastic fathers and mothers that have fallen asleep in the Lord point either to an early tradition of such an observance or betrays a much later (Studite era) date of possible adaptation. With those points established, we can now turn to the remaining, authentic homilies.

3. Cf. LEONTIUS PRESBYTER OF CONSTANTINOPLE, FourteenHomilies, trans. P. ALLEN – C. DATEMA (Byzantina Australiensia, 9), Brisbane, Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 1991; LeontiiPresbyteriConstantinopolitaniHomiliae, ed. P. ALLEN – C. DATEMA (CCSG, 17), Turnhout, Brepols; Leuven, Leuven University Press, 1987. 4. PG 89, 1192-1201. Migne’s text is lifted from Glossaria Graeca minora et alia anecdotaGraeca, ed. C.F. MATTHAEI, vol. 1, Moscow, 1774, pp. 51-58. The discussions in S.N. SAKKOS, ΠερὶἈναστασίωνΣιναϊτῶν, Thessaloniki, 1964, pp. 140-142 and K.-H. UTHE- MANN, AnastasiosSinaites:ByzantinischesChristentumindenerstenJahrzehntenunter arabischerHerrschaft (AKG, 125), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2015, pp. 797-798 are of minimal assistance. Further discussion below. 5. D. HEMMERDINGER-ILIADOU, s.v. ÉphremleSyrien, in Dictionnairedespiritualité, vol. 4, Paris, Beauchesne, 1960, cols. 788-819 (especially cols. 801, 813 nr. 44). 6. J.B. PITRA, AnalectasacraspicilegioSolesmensiparata, vol. 1, Paris, A. Jouby et Roger, 1876, pp. 242-249; C.A. TRYPANIS, FourteenEarlyByzantinecantica (Wiener byzan- tinistische Studien, 5), Wien, Böhlau, 1968, pp. 29-39. 7. SAKKOS, ΠερὶἈναστασίων(n. 4), pp. 233-236. 8. M. ARRANZ, LeTypicondumonastèreduSaint-SauveuràMessine,codexMessinen- sisGr115,A.D.1131 (OCA, 185), Roma, Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1969, p. 194. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 441

Despite our veritable incognizance of the authentic Anastasian homiletic corpus, its textual transmission attests to the popularity it enjoyed in the late antique and middle Byzantine Church, well attested to via the earliest ninth- through tenth-century panegyrika and homiliaria – manuscripts containing collections of homilies for the feasts of the liturgical calendar attributed to patristic writers held in high esteem and recited during the divine services9. Interestingly, except for the Sermodetransfiguratione, which belongs to the fixed monthly cycle of feasts in the Menaia hymn books, the remainder of the known homilies discussed below are appointed for use during the holiest period of the ecclesiastical year, that of the Triodion10. Taking into account the fact that in its formative period the Triodion is considered a product of the ninth-century editorial work of the Studios monastery in Constantinople11, it is not surprising that for each homily there exists at least two textual traditions, even from their earliest surviving manuscript witnesses. The state of affairs for the homiletic Anastasian tradition becomes that much more provisional when it is observed that palimpsest witnesses preserve what seem to be ancient readings not found in any of the other remaining preserved later sources. With regards to the occasion or place of composition and original presentation of these homilies – save, again, the Sermodetransfiguratione–

9. A. EHRHARD, ÜberlieferungundBestandderhagiographischenundhomiletischen LiteraturdergriechischenKirchevondenAnfängenbiszumEndedes16.Jahrhunderts, 3 vols. (TU, 50-52), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1936. 10. This is the liturgical cycle of feasts and commemorations revolving around the fluctuating date of Pascha, beginning with the pre-lenten weeks through the Great Fast to Holy Week – the so-called Lenten (κατανυκτικόν) Triodion – and passing on from the feast of Pascha through the entire paschal season, culminating with the feast of Pentecost and the Sunday after that of All Saints – the so-called Joyous Triodion (χαρμόσυνον) and Pentecostarion. Cf. K. MĒLIARAS, ἹστορικὴἐπισκόπησιςτοῦΤριῳδίου·τὸσχέδιονκαὶὁ καταρτισμὸςαὐτοῦ, in NeaSion 29 (1934) 44-61, 153-161, 177-184, 330-346, 452-467, 502-516, 553-570, 609-615; J. NORET, Ménologes,synaxaires,ménées:essaideclarifica- tiond’uneterminologie, in AnalectaBollandiana 86 (1968) 21-24; TheLentenTriodion, trans. Mother MARY – K. WARE (Service Books of the Orthodox Church), London – Boston, MA, Faber & Faber, 1978, pp. 40-43; O. STRUNK, Speciminanotationumantiquiorum: Foliaselectaexvariiscodicibussaec.X,XI,&XIIphototypicedepicta (Monumenta Musi- cae Byzantinae, 7), Hauniae, Munksgaard, 1966, pp. 24-25. Recent research on the ninth century Sinai Tropologion (Sin.gr.NE/ΜΓ56-5) gives new insight on the antecedent to the Triodion; cf. S.S. FRØYSHOV, LesmanuscritsdelabibliothèqueduSinaï:archivesdu mondeorthodoxe,trésordelaliturgiehiérosolymitaine, in LeMessagerOrthodoxe 148 (2009) 60-75; P. GÉHIN – S. FRØYSHOV, Nouvellesdécouvertessinaïtiques:àproposdela parutiondel’inventairedesmanuscritsgrecs, in REB 58 (2000) 167-184; A. NIKIFOROVA, TheTropologionSin.gr.NE/ΜΓ56-5oftheNinthCentury:ANewSourceforByzantine Hymnography, in Scripta&e-Scripta 12 (2013) 157-185; A. NIKIFOROVA – T. CHRONZ, The Codex Sinaiticus LiturgicusRevisited:ANewEditionandCriticalAssessmentoftheText, in OCP 83 (2017) 59-125. 11. For a concise overview of this important time of liturgical development after the victory over iconoclasm cf. R.F. TAFT, TheByzantineRite:AShortHistory, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1992, pp. 52-66 and the relative bibliography. 442 K. TERZOPOULOS the cloud of unknowing concerning an exact chronology of Anastasius’ precise travels and circles makes that task next to impossible. A pair of possible glimmers of light do exist, though, where evidence of composition towards Anastasius’ latter years may be preserved in the Sermode pseudoprophetisand HomiliainpassionemIesuChristi that will be discussed below. While a comprehensive image of each Anastasian homily and the mul- titude of their numerous scriptural and rhetorical components cannot be presented within the confines of this paper, nevertheless, it is perhaps well to begin by reviewing in a concise fashion each homily with regards to their general thematic range while also providing a highly selective description of Anastasius’ employment of Scripture via excerpts, but all this with no pretensions to completeness. His rhetorical appropriations can then be dealt with in the second part of the essay. A third part offers an annotated analysis of the first few sections of the unedited Homilia in nouamdominicam providing a more detailed and in-depth glimpse of his homiletic tekhnē, in this way both substantiating and differentiating Ana- stasius’ place in the classical patristic homiletic rhetorical tradition. As a matter of point, I have avoided discussions regarding manuscripts so as to concentrate on the topics at hand. Nevertheless, the Greek texts used here are from my working editions; I have provided references to existing editions, where they are available, and an indicative manuscript citation where they are not. All English translations of these texts – as well as emphases (underlines, italics, etc.) – are my own, unless otherwise noted.

I. THEMATIC RANGES AND THE SCRIPTURAL EXEGETICAL APPROPRIATIONS IN ANASTASIUS’ HOMILIES

At the outset it must be stated that Anastasius is almost always referring to some scriptural testimony throughout his homilies, either via direct quotation, paraphrase or allusion. Of the over 1,000 biblical references in the Anastasian homiletic corpus as it shall be defined below, the biblical books most consistently referenced are the Psalms, Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, Isaiah, and Genesis, in that order of frequency. This is not far off the mark from other observations made of late antique monastic literature12. It can also be observed that Anastasius makes fairly consistent use of the Book of Daniel, the Book of Revelation, as well as the Pauline corpus; 1 Corinthians, similarly, provides no small share of references. As might be expected, Sermodetransfiguratione makes extensive reference to the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers, as well as the parallels to the tabernacle imagery in Hebrews. The Sermodepseudoprophetis

12. For example, D. BURTON-CHRISTIE, TheWordintheDesert:ScriptureandtheQuest forHolinessinEarlyChristianMonasticism, New York, Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 97. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 443 contains twice as many biblical references as any of the other homilies, directly citing or alluding to almost every book in the New Testament canon. We shall now proceed to review each homily, individually.

1. Homiliadesacrasynaxi (CPG 7750)13 Consisting of about 4,313 words, the Homiliadesacrasynaxi is a mystagogical exhortation with vivid examples of the proper participation in the divine Synaxis (the Eucharistic celebration) and is highly reminiscent of Cyril of Jerusalem’s Mystagogia 5 and John Chrysostom’s Depaeni- tentiahomilia9. It was clearly quite popular insofar as the text is preserved in at least eighty-seven manuscripts – second only to the Homilia insextumPsalmum tradition. The eleventh- to twelfth-century Evergetis Typikon calls for its recitation on the fifth Sunday of the Great Fast14, but the eleventh-century Ms. Athos,Koutloumousi11(Lambros3080) – a manuscript older than the monastery’s foundation – calls for it to be delivered on Thursday of Holy Week15. One cannot but suspect that Anastasius was greatly influenced by John Chrysostom’s ninth homily “On repentance and about those who have forsaken the assemblies, and about the sacred table and judgment” in the Depaenitentiahomiliae just mentioned16. There is, however, another source chronologically closer to Anastasius, in Leontius of Neapolis’ Vita IohannisEleemosynarii(BHG 886-886c; CPG 7882), where the themes of not holding a grudge, not judging others, even if one thinks they witness them sinning with their own eyes, and especially judging the clergy are addressed17. While no specific evidence exists on Anastasius’ youth, neither is there, on the other hand, a hint of his having left the homeland he professes as a child and regarding which he divulges numerous details in his Narrationes18; hence, (albeit a leap of faith) if we can assume he was educated in Amathus on the Southern Cypriote coast – the town neigh boring

13. PG 89, 825-850. Migne takes the text from H. CANISIUSetal., ThesaurusMonumen- torum Ecclesiasticorum et Historicorum, vol. 1, Amsterdam, Rudophum & Gerhardum Wetstenios, 1725, pp. 465-483. Canisius’ “Bavarico codice” is München,BayerischeStaats- bibliothek,Cod.gr.24, fols. 84v-94v. 14. A. DMITRIEVSKIJ, Opisanieliturgitseskichrukopisej, vol. 1, Kiev, 1895 (repr. Hildes- heim, Olms, 1965), p. 538. 15. Fol. 333r: Τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλῃ Πέμπτῃ. 16. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, Depaenitentiahomilia 9, PG 49, 343-350. English translation by G.G. CHRISTO, JohnChrysostom, OnRepentanceandAlmsgiving (The Fathers of the Church, 96), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1998, pp. 126-130. 17. LEONTIUS OF NEAPOLIS, VitaIohannisEleemosynarii, ed. A.J. FESTUGIÈRE – L. RYDÉN, ViedeSyméonleFou(et)ViedeJeandeChypre (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, 95), Paris, P. Geuthner, 1974, pp. 388-390, 393, 396, 397, 399-401. 18. ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Narrationes II 28,2-3, ed. A. BINGGELI, AnastaseleSinaïte: RécitssurleSinaïetRécitsutilesàl’âme.Édition,traduction,commentaire, thèse de doctorat, Université Paris IV – Sorbonne, 2001, vol. 1, p. 261: ἄκουσον ὠφελιμωτάτης διηγήσεως ἐν τῇ ἐμῇ πατρίδι Ἀμαθοῦντι γεγενημένης. 444 K. TERZOPOULOS

Neapolis –, there is no reason not to assume he would have been intimately familiar with Leontius’ works19. Of special significance is the fact that Anastasius’ homily – like Cyril’s Mystagogia5 and Chrysostom’s Depaenitentiahomilia9 – is organized on the very words used by the deacon and priest during the so-called “liturgy of the faithful”, thus lending mystagogical character and possibly hinting to the homily’s context for delivery: It begins with the call to forgive one another at the kiss of peace and progresses all the way to the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer as the final point before partaking of holy Communion. Therein lies the importance of Anastasius’ extended discussion regarding mnēsikakia (the remembrance of evils, the harboring of grudges, lack of forgiveness) and the all-importance of forgiveness for the earnest participation in the eucharist. This theme eventually dovetails with the Dedignitate sacerdotali on judging the clergy, another familiar Anastasian subject20. The discussion also includes an explicit definition of the term anaphora21: the name refers, he says, to the fact that “we raise up our sins and thoughts to God”22. Instead of judging others and holding grudges Anastasius advises:

Therefore, stand before God with silence and contrition. Confess your sins to Christ through the priests. Condemn your actions and do not be ashamed, forthereisashamethatleadstosin,andthereisashamethatleadstoglory andgrace (Sir 4,21). Censure yourself before men so the judge will justify you before the angels and all the world (cf. 1 Cor 11,31-32; Mk 8,38; Mt 16,27; 25,31-33; Lk 12,8-9); ask mercy from God; ask for pardon; ask the remis- sion of past deeds and redemption for the future ones so you may worthily and properly approach the divine mysteries of Christ: so you may commune the body and blood of the master with a pure conscience and it may be unto purification and not condemnation23.

19. Leontius of Neapolis is specifically mentioned in ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Quaestiones etresponsiones Ap18, 6,76-80, ed. M. RICHARD – J.A. MUNITIZ (CCSG, 59), Turnhout, Brepols, 2006, pp. 198-199 (in English by J.A. MUNITIZ, AnastasiosofSinai,Questionsand Answers [CCT, 7], Turnhout, Brepols, 2011, p. 69,196-201), and Narrationes II 24,1-2, ed. BINGGELI (n. 18), p. 255 (repeated in Narrationes II 24bis at A 3,208-209: p. 280). 20. ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Narrationes II 15, II 27, ed. BINGGELI (n. 18), pp. 274-283; Quaestionesetresponsiones Ap17 (CCSG, 59), pp. 192-195 (trans. MUNITIZ, Anastasios [n. 19], pp. 63-66). 21. Anastasius’ text for the offering (anaphora) – ἄνω σχῶμεν τὸν νοῦν καὶ τὰς καρ- δίας (PG 89, 837A) – betrays the Palestinian usage of the Liturgy of James, the brother of the Lord at Sinai; cf. B.-C. MERCIER, LaliturgiedesaintJacques.Éditioncritiquedutexte grecavectraductionlatine (PO, 26.2), Paris, Firmin-Didot, 1946, p. 198 [84], ll. 15-16; R. TAFT, WorshiponSinaiPeninsulaintheFirstChristianMillennium:GlimpsesofaLost World, in S.E.J. GERSTEL – R.S. NELSON (eds.), ApproachingtheHolyMountain:Artand LiturgyatSt.Catherine’sMonasteryintheSinai, Turnhout, Brepols, 2010, 143-177, especially pp. 150-161. 22. Ἀναφορὰ γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο λέγεται, διὰ τὸ πρὸς θεὸν ἀναφέρεσθαι ἡμῶν τὰ ἁμαρ- τήματα καὶ ἐνθυμήματα. Cf. PG 89, 833C. 23. Παράστηθι οὖν τῷ θεῷ μεθ’ ἡσυχίας καὶ κατανύξεως. Ἐξομολόγησαι τῷ χριστῷ διὰ τῶν ἱερέων τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου. Καταδίκασόν σου τὰς πράξεις καὶ μὴ αἰσχυνθῇς· ἔστιν γὰρ αἰσχύνη ἐπάγουσα ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ ἔστιν αἰσχύνη δόξα καὶ χάρις. Κατάκρινον ἑαυτὸν APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 445

Anastasius then directly quotes Paul’s teaching regarding how one should examine oneself and only then partake of the bread and cup of the Lord (1 Cor 11,28-30). This topic of the reception of holy Communion in a worthy manner is also addressed by Anastasius in his Quaestiones24 and Nar- rationes25. The homily ends with the tale or diēgēsis of the death of the careless and slack monk, who enters paradise because of the single virtue of not judging his brother (Mt 6,12-15; 7,1; Lk 6,37; Mk 11,25-26)26. The direct citations and allusions to Scripture in this text are almost exclusively from the New Testament and predominantly from the Gospel parallels warning against wrath (Mt 5,23-24), on the Lord’s Prayer and the importance of forgiving if one expects to be forgiven (Mt 6,12.14-15; 7,1-3.21-23) – the Lord’s own postscript to the dominical prayer, also emphasized in Cyril’s Mystagogia 5. From the very outset of the homily, however, Anastasius offers some directly-quoted maxims regarding the value of the book of Psalms – no doubt due to its centrality to the Christian rites of worship – and on the attitude required toward the reading and study of the Scriptures worthy of special attention in the context of the present topic. Beginning with two psalmic verses27 referring to worship in the congregation – ἐν ἐκκλησίαις γάρ, φησίν, εὐλογεῖτε τὸν θεόν [In congregations bless ye God, the Lord from the well-springs of Israel] (Ps 67,27) and ἐν μέσῳ ἐκκλησίας ὑμνήσω σε [In the midst of the church I will hymn thee] (Ps 21,23b) – the prophetic injunction is raised as a general maxim (gnōmē)28 from which to commence this essentially catechetic and mystagogic oration on the proper manner of participation in the eucharistic rite: σχολάσατε καὶ γνῶτε, ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεός [Be still, and know that I am God29] (Ps 45,11). Other than the VitaIohannisEleemosynarii text already mentioned above, it is quite obvious to me that Anastasius is

ἐνώπιον ἀνθρώπων, ἵνα ἐνώπιον ἀγγέλων, καὶ παντὸς τοῦ κόσμου ὁ κριτής σε δικαιώσῃ· αἴτησαι ἔλεος παρὰ θεοῦ· αἴτησαι συγγνώμην· αἴτησαι ἄφεσιν τῶν παρελθόντων καὶ λύτρωσιν τῶν μελλόντων ἵνα ἀξίως καὶ πρεπόντως τοῖς θείοις τοῦ χριστοῦ μυστηρίοις προσέλθῃς, ἵνα καθαρῷ συνειδότι τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος μεταλάβῃς τοῦ δεσποτικοῦ, ἵνα σου εἰς κάθαρσιν καὶ μὴ εἰς κατάκρισιν γένηται. Cf. PG 89, 833C-D. All translations and emphases from Anastasius’ homilies are my own unless otherwise cited. 24. Shared topics abound: ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Quaestionesetresponsiones 6, 26, 29, 38, 41, 42, 47, 49, 59, 65, 72, 91, Ap8, Ap10a, Ap10b, Ap11, Ap13, Ap17, Ap25. 25. ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Narrationes II 17, ed. BINGGELI (n. 18). 26. BHG 1440pb Demortemonachiquifratresnoniudicavit (in English by J. WORT- LEY, ARepertoireofByzantine‘BeneficialTales’ [διηγήσειςψυχωφελεῖς], W868, accessed at http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~wortley/index.html.). See also WORTLEY, A Repertoire, W869 (= BHG 1440kh); ID., LesrécitsédifiantsdePaul,évêquedeMonembasie,etd’autres auteurs (Sources d’histoire médiévale), Paris, CNRS, 1987, 02 (= BHG 1449c). 27. The English translation is taken from ThePsalteraccordingtotheSeventyofSt. David,thePropherandKing, Boston, MA, Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1987, pp. 123 and 53 respectively. 28. Cf. PS.-HERMOGENES §4 (Onmaxim), trans. G.A. KENNEDY, Progymnasmata:Greek TextbooksofProseCompositionandRhetoric (Writings from the Greco-Roman World, 10), Leiden, Brill, 2003, pp. 77-78. 29. ThePsalter (n. 27), p. 93. 446 K. TERZOPOULOS influenced here by Step 29, “Concerning Heaven on earth, or Godlike dispassion…”30, the next to last step in John Climacus’ famous work, the Scalaparadisi31. Anastasius explains:

For the book of the Psalms trains piety, instructs regarding faith, teaches prudence, guides toward the fear of God, narrates regarding punishment, compunction, temperance, repentance, sympathy, God’s love, patience, purity, longsuffering, fasting and good works. For careful attention [prose- dreia] and leisure [skholē]32 of prayer and divine scripture is the mother of all virtues33.

As the “mother of all virtues” the attention to Scripture and prayer is the path to having one’s petitions heard and coming to the true knowledge of God:

Thus, therefore, except that one gives their leisure [skholēs] and careful attention [prosedreias] in prayer, and the reading of that which is in the Scriptures, one will neither receive one’s petitions, nor will they come to truly know God34.

Anastasius’ possible upbringing and service in the Church of Amathus from a tender age and subsequent monastic life as a disciple of a certain Epiphanius the recluse, plus conceivable successive residencies at monastic dependencies, such as Malocha, Gouda with Cosmas the Armenian and the Arselaou, attested to in his TalesoftheSinaiFathers and EdifyingTales – even given the fact that he may at times only be the redactor of the entirety that is related there – point to a dedication to the monastic ideal35.However,

30. JOHN CLIMACUS, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, trans. Archimandrite L. MOORE, revised edition, Boston, MA, Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1978, p. 221. 31. Cf. JOHN CLIMACUS, Scalaparadisi, PG 88, 1152B and ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Hom- iliadesacrasynaxi, PG 89, 828A. 32. Σχολή is a term used in ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Hodegos II, 8,80 and III, 1,75, ed. K.-H. UTHEMANN (CCSG, 8), Turnhout, Brepols, 1981, pp. 70 and 79; Hexaemeron XI, 1067, ed. C.A. KUEHN – J.D. BAGGARLY (OCA, 278), Roma, Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2007, p. 452; HomiliainpassionemIesuChristi (unedited), Paris.gr.1504, fol. 161r, col. b, l. 21; fol. 161v, col. a, l. 1; and Paris.gr.979, fol. 223r, l. 26; fol. 223v, l. 2. 33. Ἡ γὰρ τῶν Ψαλμῶν βίβλος θεοσέβειαν παιδεύει· περὶ πίστεως νομοθετεῖ· σωφροσύνην διδάσκει· εἰς θεοῦ φόβον ὁδηγεῖ· περὶ κολάσεως διηγεῖται, περὶ κατανύ- ξεως, περὶ ἐγκρατείας, περὶ μετανοίας, περὶ συμπαθείας, περὶ ἀγάπης θεοῦ, περὶ ὑπο- μονῆς, περὶ ἀγνείας, περὶ μακροθυμίας, περὶ νηστείας καὶ περὶ εὐποιίας. ἡ γὰρ προσε- δρεία καὶ σχολὴ τῆς τε προσευχῆς καὶ τῶν θείων γραφῶν, μήτηρ ὑπάρχει πασῶν τῶν ἀρετῶν. Cf. PG 89, 825A. 34. Ἐκτὸς μὲν γὰρ σχολῆς καὶ πολλῆς τῆς προσεδρείας τῆς ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς, καὶ ἐν ταῖς θείαις τῶν γραφῶν ἀναγνώσεσιν, οὐκ ἔστιν οὔτε τὰ αἰτήματα λαβεῖν, οὔτε τὸν θεὸν ἀληθῶς ἐπιγνῶναι. Cf. PG 89, 828A. 35. Ed. BINGGELI (n. 18). English translation of the TalesoftheSinaiFathers in D. CANER etal., HistoryandHagiographyfromtheLateAntiqueSinai(Translated Texts for Historians, 53), Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 2010, pp. 172-199; Cf. A. BINGGELI, s.v. Anasta- siusofSinai, in Christian-MuslimRelations:ABibliographicalHistory.Vol. 1(600-900), APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 447 given the wealth of spiritual counsel found in his Quaestiones36, his homiletic output also betrays the insight of an experienced presbyter and skilled elder. These other works attest to the various trajectories of monastic inheritance that would have been preponderant in Anastasius’ background and formation, especially the Palestinian hagiographic influence of Sophronius of Jerusalem’s Laudesinss.CyrumetIohannem (CPG 7645) and John Moschus’ Pratumspirituale (CPG 7376), but also the so-called “desert hermeneutic”37. Notwithstanding, the homiletic corpus as a whole clearly does not seem to be addressed to a primarily monastic audience. Having said that, in the narration on the negligent monk, which concludes the homily, we must recognize, too, John Climacus’ narrations on Hesy- chius the Horebite the negligent monk38 and Stephanus who was “tried” on his deathbed39 as obvious influences. Furthermore, there are no less than nine points I shall not enumerate here where one can sense Anasta- sius leaning heavily for inspiration – Steps 29 (Concerning Heaven on earth), 6 (On the remembrance of death), 7 (On joy-making mourning), 9 (On mnēsikakia, the remembrance of wrongs) and 10 (On slander). Lastly, Anastasius demonstrates he is fully aware of the basic and per- vasive temptation of distraction (perispasmos) during the divine services. This homily is full of examples of the faithful using the time of the holy Synaxis for idle conversation, business transactions, political corruption and even the occupation of observing the beauty of the opposite sex. Well aware of the temptations and attitudes among the flock that prevailed and how, if left unchecked, the result could be ruinous, Anastasius prescribes the careful attention to the reading of Scripture as a basic remedy:

And in the church of God, both in prayer and in reading, we are not willing to be present before God even for one hour; but as if running from fire, that is how we hurry to exit the church of God. And if the Gospel reading were proclaimed from a longer pericope, we are irritated and put out [aganaktōmen kaiperistatoumetha]. And were it that the priest making the prayers made these slightly drawn out, we become gloomy and are neglectful [stugnazōmen kaioligōrōmen]; and if the bloodless sacrifice being offered is delayed a little, we are weary and growing tired and yawning, as if in a court room:

ed. D. THOMAS – B. ROGGEMA (The History of Christian-Muslim Relations, 11),Leiden, Brill, 2009, 193-202. 36. J.A. MUNITIZ, AnastasiosofSinai:SpeakingandWritingtothePeopleofGod, in M.B. CUNNINGHAM – P. ALLEN (eds.), PreacherandAudience:StudiesinEarlyChristian andByzantineHomiletics(A New History of the Sermon, 1), Leiden – Boston, MA – Köln, Brill, 1998, 227-245. 37. BURTON-CHRISTIE, TheWordintheDesert (n. 12),pp. 1-103. 38. JOHN CLIMACUS, ScalaParadisi, VI, PG 88, 796,44–797,17 (trans. MOORE [n. 30], pp. 68-69). 39. Ibid., VII, PG 88, 812,29-42 (trans. MOORE [n. 30], pp. 76-77); ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Quaestionesetresponsiones Ap18 (CCSG, 59), p. 203(trans. MUNITIZ [n. 19], pp. 72-73); WORTLEY, ARepertoire (n. 26): Stephanimonachimorientisvisio, nos. 869 and w702. 448 K. TERZOPOULOS

in the same way we zealously look to see how we can quickly avoid prayer. And we are pushed by the devil toward his vain works and prodigality40.

2. HomiliainsextumPsalmum (CPG 7751)41 The most popular text in the Anastasian homiletic corpus has come down in two distinct recensions: recension (a) with approximately 5,808 words and a slightly less 5,453 words for recension (b); these texts are preserved in no less than 190 manuscripts. The main observable difference between the two recensions has to do with style, not theme or purpose: recension (b) is paratactic, while recension (a) is hypotactic. These stylistic, among other, phrasal observations caused S.N. Sakkos to speculate that (b) was actually a transcription of an uttered sermon42. In any event, both recensions have as their stated purpose “the teaching of sincere repentance in the Sixth Psalm”: διδασκαλία εἰλικρινοῦς μετανοίας43. The homily is a verse by verse reflection and commentary on the Sixth Psalm of David that concludes in an exhortation on the power of the tears of repentance illustrated with three narratives (diēgēmata)44: (1) the tears of Manasseh (Paral = 2 Chr 33,1-13; Ode 12); (2) the tears of the young man baptized by John the Evangelist and then turned robber from Clement of Alexandria’s Quis dives salvetur45; and (3) the tears which saved a highway robber in the Sampson hospital of Constantinople46 during the reign of Emperor Maurice, complete with his vision at the weigh-station and highly reminiscent of a similar vision described in Leontius’ Vita IohannisEleemosynarii47.

40. Ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ δὲ Θεοῦ καὶ προσευχῇ καὶ ἀναγνώσει, μίαν μόνην ὥραν παραστῆ- ναι Θεῷ οὐ βουλόμεθα· ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἀπὸ πυρός, οὕτω τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησίας ἐξελθεῖν σπεύδομεν. Κἂν τὸ θεῖον εὐαγγέλιον μείζονα περικοπὴν εἴπῃ, ἀγανακτῶμεν καὶ περι- στατούμεθα· κἂν ὁ τὰς εὐχὰς ποιῶν ἱερεύς, ταύτας μικρὸν παρεκτείνῃ, στυγνάζωμεν καὶ ὀλιγωρῶμεν· κἂν ὁ τὴν ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν προσφέρων πρὸς βραχὺ βραδύνῃ, ἀκη- διῶμεν νυστάζοντες καὶ χασμώμενοι καὶ ὡς ἀπὸ δικαστηρίου, οὕτως συντόμως τῆς προσευχῆς ἀποστῆναι σπουδάζομεν. καὶ ἐπὶ ταῖς ματαίαις πράξεσι καὶ ἀσωτίαις ἀπέρ- χεσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου κατεπειγόμεθα. Cf. PG 89, 829A-B. 41. PG 89, 1077-1116 and 1116-1144. Migne takes both recensions from CANISIUSetal., Thesaurus(n. 13), vol. 1, (a) pp. 480-502, (b) pp. 502-519. 42. SAKKOS, ΠερὶἈναστασίων (n. 4), pp. 136-139. 43. Cf. PG 89, 1007B and 1116D. The same terminology can be detected in ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Quaestionesetresponsiones Ap26, l. 3 (CCSG, 59), p. 230. 44. Cf. Ps.-HERMOGENES § 2 (Onnarrative), trans. KENNEDY, Progymnasmata (n. 28), p. 75. With regards to Anastasius’ introduction to the section on tears, the phrase κατὰ θεὸν δακρύων can be found in JOHN CLIMACUS, ScalaParadisi, VII, PG 88, 808,44-45). Compare with ANASTASIUS SINAITA, HomiliainsextumPsalmum, PG 89, 1101D,7-8 and 1133C,2-3. 45. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Quisdivessalvetur, ed. O. STÄHLIN (GCS, 172), Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1970, pp. 187,27–190,19. 46. T. MILLER, TheSampsonHospitalofConstantinople, in ByzantinischeForschungen 15 (1990) 101-135. 47. LEONTIUS OF NEAPOLIS, ViedeJeandeChypre (n. 17), pp. 368-369. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 449

The homily’s popularity is reflected in the fact that the Evergetis Typikon and numerous manuscripts assign its recitation for the first day of the Great Fast48 while other witnesses appoint the Sunday or Thursday in the week of Cheesefare, the week before the Great Fast49; the Messina monastic Typikon appoints the orthros of Saturday in the second week of the Fast50. After a short introduction, Anastasius begins by commenting on the psalm’s inscription, as found in the Septuagint Greek: εἰς τὸ τέλος, ἐν ὕμνοις, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὀγδόης· ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυΐδ (Ps 6,1). He will make two exegetical points on the psalm’s inscription: first, that “Scripture likes to name the age after the seventh, present age, the eighth, that is, the future age, life and way of life”51; he then immediately adds the second hermeneutic point, namely, that this “was foretold by the eighth-day circumcision”52 – in recension (b) the word tupos is actually used53. This interpretation is, of course, not unique to Anastasius, but is an example of how he was a careful scholar and bearer of the patristic tradition the came down to him, as well as the Church’s appropriation of the Hebrew Scriptures and Law tradition54. It should be pointed out that this is not the only place Anastasius deals with either of these specific points in his works. In the Hexaemeron he calls all to receive the “spiritual circumcision of your senses” (τὴν πνευματικὴν περιτομὴν ἐπὶ ταῖς αἰσθήσεσί σου)55, but references can also be detected in his Hodegos56, Capitaviadversusmonotheletas57 and the Ps.-Anastasian DisputatioadversusJudaeos58; the same turn of phrase is found, too, in Didymus the Blind’s commentary59. As shall be discussed in the next section of this paper, Anastasius often brings his narratives to life via the skilled use of ēthopoeia, hypothetical

48. DMITRIEVSKIJ, Opisanie (n. 14), p. 513. Witnesses to both recensions share this rubric: Dublin,ChesterBeattyW.132 (11th c.), Milano,AmbrosianaF124.sup. (13th c.), Vat. gr. 1587 (14th c.), Paris.gr.772 (15th c.), but Wien,Theol. gr. 123 (13th c.) simply states “during the first week of the Fast”. 49. This is the case with Patmensis191 (9th c.) and the majority of other witness which give rubrics. However, the Athens,MetochionPanagiouTaphou245 (10th c.) is alone in calling for its recitation on the Sunday of the Prodigal Son – the second Sunday of the Triodion. 50. ARRANZ, LeTypicon(n. 8), p. 216. 51. Ὀγδόην φιλεῖ ἡ γραφὴ ὀνομάζειν τὴν μετὰ τὴν ἑβδόμην τοῦ παρόντος αἰῶνος, ἤτοι τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, ζωὴν καὶ διαγωγήν. Cf. PG 89, 1080B and 1117A-B. 52. ἣν προεμήνυσεν καὶ ἡ ὀκταήμερος περιτομή. Cf. PG 89, 1080B. 53. ἧς τύπος, ἡ ὀκταήμερος περιτομή. Cf. PG 89, 1117B. 54. Cf. G.W.H. LAMPE – H.G. LIDDELL, APatristicGreekLexicon, Oxford – New York, Clarendon, 1961, s.v. ὄγδοος: A.1. 55. ANASTASIUS SINAITA,Hexaemeron VI, 444-447 (n. 32), p. 226. 56. ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Hodegos II, 5,47 (CCSG, 8, p. 53); VIII, 2,47-48 (p. 119); XIII, 5,23-25 (p. 226), 7, 145-147 (p. 241). 57. ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Capitaadversusmonotheletas VII, 1,104-105, ed. K.-H. UTHEMANN (CCSG, 12), Turnhout, Brepols, 1985, p. 118. 58. PG 89, 1280B. 59. Cf. DIDYMUS THE BLIND, Fragment 31,1-28, ed. E. MÜHLENBERG, Psalmenkommen- tareausderKatenenüberlieferung (PTS, 15), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1975, p. 135. 450 K. TERZOPOULOS dramatization60. In this particular case the imagined use of words is attributed to the psalmist. The point to be made here is how Anastasius, albeit in the imagined words, constantly refers to biblical persons or events and parables to create an ēthos that refers his listeners to the Scriptural proto- types he wishes them to vividly recall. His tactic is quite skilled and effective, sometimes merely alluding to and at other times directly quoting, but always with a conciseness or rapidity (gorgotēs) of style61. An excerpt of just such a hypothetical dramatization helps to illustrate the point:

But let us see this psalm’s introduction: Lord,rebukemenotinthineanger (Ps 6,1). The prophet, with noetic eyes, as if already naked and laid open, present there before the awful place of judgement and taking hold of those feet of the judge, as one without boldness and downcast, and one who has lost face, devoid of any defense for his offenses, in no way, then, does he beg the judge, but simply says: “Lord,rebukemenotinthineanger. I know, master, that every terror and fright awaits me at that court before angels and archangels and all creation, presiding upon that awesome and liftedupthrone (Isa 6,1), disclosing and revealing all my committed transgressions. And I do not dare, neither do I presume to ask for the complete forgiveness of my many transgressions, master, formytransgressionisbeyonddismissal (Gen 4,13); for beyond every man I have offended; I have provoked your name beyond measure; for ‘more than the prodigal’ I, the prodigal, ‘passed my life’62; for even above the one who owed the ten thousand talents have I become your debtor (Mt 18,23-35)63. Even more than the tax-collector did the enemy wickedly exact a toll from me; even more than the murdering thief did the thief wickedly put me to death; even more than the harlot, I, the lecherous one, played the harlot from God (cf. Jdg 2,17); even more than Nineveh did I sin unrepentant (cf. Nah 2-3; Isa 10,5-19; Rm 2,5); above Manasseh64, myiniquitieshavegoneovermy head (Ps 37,5a); above the Canaanite woman, theyweighlikeaburdenupon me(Ps 37,5b), and distressed Iambroughtdownexceedinglyeventotheend” (Ps 37,7a)65.

60. Cf. PS.-HERMOGENES § 10 (Onethopoeia), trans. KENNEDY, Progymnasmata (n. 28), pp. 164-166. 61. Conciseness or γοργότης is one of the seven ἰδέαι or Forms of style in Hermogenes’ DeIdeis, concerning which there will be more to say below. Cf. H. RABE (ed.) – G.A. KENNEDY (trans.), InventionandMethod:TwoRhetoricalTreatisesfromtheHermogenicCorpus (Writ- ings from the Greco-Roman World, 15), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2005; C.W. WOOTEN (trans.), Hermogenes’OnTypesofStyle, Chapel Hill, NC, The University of North Carolina Press, 1987. 62. Cf. EPHRAEM SYRUS, Precationesesacrisscripturiscollectae, VI, ed. K.G. PHRANT- ZOLA, ὉσίουἘφραὶμτοῦΣύρουἔργα, vol. 6, Thessalonikē, To Perivoli tēs Panagias, 1995, p. 330,7-8. Compare also with ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Homiliadesacrasynaxi, PG 89, 829B. 63. Cf. ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Homiliadesacrasynaxi, PG 89, 841C; Quaestioneset responsiones 50, 3(CCSG, 59), p. 104. 64. For Manasseh, to whom Anastasius will return in the last section of his homily, see 4 Kings in the LXX (= 2 Kings) 21,1-17 and 2 Chr 33. 65. Ἀλλ᾽ ἴδωμεν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ψαλμοῦ τὸ προοίμιον· Κύριε,μὴτῷθυμῷσουἐλέγξῃςμε. Ὄμμασιν νοεροῖς ὁ προφήτης ὡς ἤδη γυμνὸς καὶ τετραχηλισμένος πρὸς τὸ φοβερὸν APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 451

Anastasius expands the introductory verse by composing an imaginary extension of the prophet’s thoughts and prayer before God. What I hope is made evident with the above quote is his creative use of Scriptural allusion and quotation referencing the prodigal, the tax-collector, the debtor who owed ten thousand talents, the harlotry of Israel, unrepentant Nineveh, Manasseh, the Canaanite woman which utilizes quotes from passages of Ps 37, all in quick succession to bring liveliness to the devotional contemplation: this is a common trait used throughout his homiletic corpus. Over thirty other Psalms are also referenced in the same homily, but references or allusions are also drawn from Proverbs (3), Isaiah (6), Job (5), Sirach (1), the twelfth Ode of Manasseh’s prayer, Ecclesiastes (2), Jere- miah (3), Chronicles (3), and from the New Testament, of course, all four Gospels, but at least twenty references to Pauline epistles, especially Hebrews, 1 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Revelation. The intertextuality is highly developed, yet subtle. Further influence of this homily’s popularity can be appreciated when one considers the prayer (eukhē) published in 1976 by S.N. Sakkos from the tenth-century Athos M. Laura Γ66 (fols. 235-238v) Horologion containing a small section of the homily (PG 89, 1084A-1085B and 1120A-1121A) and adapted for use on 1 September, the first day of the ecclesiastical new year known as the Indiction66.

3. Sermodetransfiguratione (CPG 7753) Perhaps the first preserved patristic homily to reference an ecclesiastical feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord, the Sermodetransfiguratione is a most beautiful specimen of epideictic panegyric, consisting of approximately

ἐκεῖσε παρεστὼς δικαστήριον, καὶ αὐτῶν τοῦ κριτοῦ ποδῶν ἐφαπτόμενος ὡς οἷά τις ἀπαῤῥησίαστος καὶ κατηφὴς καὶ ἀπρόσωπος ὑπάρχων, καὶ μηδεμίαν ἀπολογίαν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων πλημμελημάτων εὐπορῶν· οὐδὲν λοιπόν, τολμᾶ τὸν δικαστὴν ἐξαιτεῖ, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τοῦτο λέγων· Κύριε, μὴ τῷ θυμῷ σου ἐλέγξῃς με. Οἶδα, δέσποτα, ὅτι πᾶν δεινὸν καὶ φρικτὸν ἀναμένει με, ὃ συστήσασθαι μέλλεις δικαστήριον ἐνώπιον ἀγγέλων καὶ ἀρχαγγέλων καὶ πάσης κτίσεως· ἐπὶ τοῦ φοβεροῦ καὶ ἐπηρμένουθρόνου εἰς κρίσιν προ- καθήμενος, καὶ πάντων τῶν πεπραγμένων ἡμῖν ἁμαρτημάτων φανέρωσιν καὶ ἀποκάλυ- ψιν ποιούμενος. Καὶ οὐ τολμῶ, οὐδὲ εὐπροσωπῶ τελείαν τὴν συγχώρησιν τῶν πολλῶν μου ἁμαρτιῶν παρὰ σοῦ αἰτήσασθαι, δέσποτα, ὅτι μείζωνἡἁμαρτίαμουτοῦἀφεθῆναίμε· ὅτι πλεῖον παντὸς ἀνθρώπου εἰς σὲ ἐπλημμέλησα· ὅτι ὑπὲρμέτροντὸὄνομάσουπαρώ- ξυνα· ὅτι ὑπὲρτὸνἄσωτονἐγὼ ὁ ἄσωτος ἐβίωσα· ὅτι ὑπὲρ τὸν τὰ μύρια τάλαντά σοι χρεωστοῦντα χρεωφειλέτης σοι γέγονα. Ὑπὲρ τὸν τελώνην ὁ ἐχθρός με κακῶς ἐτελώ- νησεν· ὑπὲρ τὸν λῃστὴν ὁ φονοκτόνος λῃστὴς κακῶς με ἐθανάτωσεν· ὑπὲρ τὴν πόρνην ἐγὼ ὁ φιλόπονος, ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐξεπόρνευσα· ὑπὲρ τὴν Νινευῆ ἀμετανόητα ἐπλημμέλησα· ὑπὲρ τὸν Μανασσῆ ὑπερῆραναἱἀνομίαιμουτὴνκεφαλήνμου· ὑπὲρ τὴν Χαναναίαν ὡσεὶ φορτίονβαρὺἐβαρύνθησανἐπ ᾽ ἐμέ, καὶ ταλαιπωρήσας κατεκάμφθηνἕωςτέλους (cf. PG 89, 1080B-1081A). Parts of the HomiliainsextumPsalmum also appear in the dubia of John Chrysostom, PG 55, 543-550. 66. S.N. SAKKOS (ed.), ἈναστασίουΒ´Ἀντιοχείαςἀνέκδοταἔργα, Thessaloniki, 1976, pp. 11-12. 452 K. TERZOPOULOS

4,281 words. A. Guillou published an edition of the homily in 195567, but it blindly followed the oldest witnesses and was in desperate need of reconstruction. Noteworthy is the fact that this homily was used by John Cyparissiotes in his Adversus Cantacuzenum68. An English translation based on the Guillou edition has recently been published in B. Daley’s collection of Transfiguration homilies69. Another homily, the Sermo in transfigurationemdomini(CPG 6947; BHG 1993)70, is sometimes attributed to Anastasius Sinaita in the manuscript tradition, but clearly belongs to the pen of Anastasius I of Antioch. According to the homily’s epigraph in the manuscript tradition it was delivered on the feast day of the Trans- figuration (6 August) at the very place of the Transfiguration event, Mount Thabor. A twelfth-century manuscript originally from Cyprus, the Paris. gr. 1504, adds an interesting subtitle: “due to a necessity of some monks there”71. Mount Thabor is identified as a place of pilgrimage from at least the fourth century; by the sixth century there are witnesses of three churches on the site, as well as “a large monastery with many cells”72. This, of course, bides well with Anastasius’ identity as a controversialist defending the Christological definition of Chalcedon. Hence, I find it completely feasible for Anastasius to have taken advantage of the opportunity by giving special attention to the Transfiguration event as a Christological, soteriological revelation parexcellence of Christ’s divine nature – i.e., a theophany vision. The homily does not stop there, however; he turns the

67. A. GUILLOU, LemonastèredelaThéotokosauSinaï:origines;épiclèse;mosaïque delaTransfiguration;Homélieinédited’AnastaseleSinaïtesurlaTransfiguration(étude ettextecritique)”, in Mélangesd’archéologieetd’histoire 67 (1955) 216-258, Greek text on pp. 237-257. 68. Cf. JOHN CYPARISSIOTES, AdversusCantacuzenum 35, ed. I. POLEMĒSetal., Theologica variaineditasaeculiXIV (CCSG, 76), Turnhout, Brepols, 2012. 69. B.E. DALEY (trans.), LightontheMountain:GreekPatristicandByzantineHomilies ontheTransfigurationoftheLord (Popular Patristics Series, 48), Yonkers, NY, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2013, pp. 161-178. 70. PG 89, 1361-1376 (= GALLANDI, 1788). This author has prepared a forthcoming edition of this work based on its four existing witnesses: https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/oeuvre/8709/. 71. Paris.gr.1504, fol. 85r: ἀνάγκης τινῶν μοναχῶν εἰς αὐτὴν γεναμένης. 72. Jerome’s communications with Paula (Pammachius’ mother-in-law and later Jerome’s colleague in Jerusalem) and her daughter Eustochia speak of Mount Thabor as a place of pilgrimage already by the middle of the fourth century (JEROME, Letter CVIII To Eustochia, 13; Letter XLVI PaulaandEustochiumtoMarcella, 13). By the year AD 696 Adomnanus, recording information he received from a Frankish bishop named Arculf, would write in his DeLocisSanctis that there were on Mount Thabor three churches and a large monastery with many cells; cf. ADAMNANetal., AdamanniScotohiberniabbatis- celeberrimi,DesituTerraeSanctae,etquorundamaliorumlocorum,vtAlexandriae,& Constantinopoleos,libritres, Ingolstadij, apud E. Angermariam, vid., sumptibus I. Hertsroy, 1619, pp. 85-87. The AD 705 itinerary of St Willibald specifies that the three churches were dedicated to the Lord, Moses and Elijah: B. IOANNIDES, ΤὸΘαβὼρἤτοιπεριγραφὴτοπο- γραφικὴκαὶἱστορικὴτοῦΘαβωρίουὄρους, Jerusalem, ἐκ τοῦ τυπογραφείου τοῦ Π. Τάφου, 1867, pp. 48-49. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 453 event into an ekphrasis73, even tupos74 of the age to come, emphasizing its eschatological significance:

For what is greater or more awe-inspiring than to see God in the form of man shining as the sun, and his face shining more than the sun and flashing forth and emitting rays ceaselessly, and the immaculate finger pointing to his very face and indicating and saying to those with him there [that] in this way shall therighteousshineforth in the resurrection; in this manner shall they be glorified, transfigured to this, my own form; to this glory shall they be reformed; to this kind shall they be molded, to this image, to a representation such as this, to light such as this, to this blessedness, becoming of similar form but also sharing my throne, that of the Son of God75.

Once again, Anastasius’ exegesis of the Transfiguration event is congruous with the patristic interpretation that preceded him as (i) an epiphany of Jesus the Christ’s deity, (ii) a soteriological witness to the deification of the flesh, as well as (iii) a foreshadowing of the Kingdom and Parousia76. Like John Climacus before him, Anastasius is inspired by the vision of Jacob’s ladder in Gen 28,1-19. The homily begins with the phrase, How awesomeisthisplace!ThisisnoneotherbutthehouseofGod,andthisis thegateofheaven(Gen 28,17). His starting point from the very outset of the piece is to establish his exegesis of the Transfiguration event as a gate to heaven. Mostly, Anastasius examines the event via the Matthean account (Mt 17,1-13; Mk 9,1-13) – possibly taking his cue from Cyril of Alexan- dria77 – as a direct proof of Christ’s words, Therebesomestandinghere,

73. Cf. PS.-HERMOGENES § 11 (On ekphrasis), trans. KENNEDY, Progymnasmata (n. 28), pp. 166-168. 74. B.G. BUCUR, ExegesisandIntertextualityinAnastasiustheSinaite’sHomilyOn the Transfiguration, in StudiaPatristica 68 (2013) 249-260. Bucur’s thesis is that Anastasius’ homily and exegesis is neither spiritualizing or typological, but he equates it with what he terms “the ‘Re-written Bible’ approach of Byzantine hymnographic tradition” (p. 249). Despite the discussion on pp. 255-257, it still seems to me that this is simply an under- appreciation of the place of epideictic rhetoric as one step off from poetry, as understood in late antique and Byzantine literature. It is my belief that Anastasius would himself see this form of exegesis here as typology. 75. Τί γὰρ τούτου μειζότερον ἢ φρικωδέστερον εἰδέσθαι θεὸν ἐν μορφῇ ἀνθρώπου ὡς τὸν ἥλιον λάμποντα τὸ πρόσωπον καὶ ἀπαστράπτοντα, καὶ ἀκτῖνας ἀκαταπαύστως φεγγοβολοῦντας καὶ τὸν ἄχραντον δάκτυλον ἐπὶ τοῦ ἰδίου προσώπου ἐπιτεθέντα καὶ ὑποδεικνύοντα· καὶ πρὸς τοὺς σὺν αὐτῷ ἐκεῖσε ὄντας λέγοντα, [ὅτι] οὕτως ἐκλάμψουσιν οἱδίκαιοιἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει· οὕτως δοξασθήσονται, εἰς ταύτην τὴν ἐμὴν μορφὴν μετα- μορφωθήσονται, εἰς ταύτην τὴν δόξαν μετασχηματισθήσονται, εἰς τοῦτο τὸ εἶδος δια- τυπωθήσονται, εἰς ταύτην τὴν εἰκόνα, εἰς τοιοῦτον χαρακτῆρα, εἰς τοιοῦτον φῶς, εἰς τοιαύτην μακαριότητα, σύμμορφοί τε καὶ σύνθρονοι γενόμενοι ἐμοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ. Cf. GUILLOU, Lemonastère (n. 67), p. 253,7-15. 76. For an analysis see J.A. MCGUCKIN, TheTransfigurationofChristinScriptureand Tradition (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity, 9), Lewiston, NY, Edwin Mellen Press, 1986, pp. 99-143. 77. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, HomiliaintransfigurationemDomini (= InLucam,hom. 51), PG 77, 1012A: ἵνα τοίνυν τῶν τοιούτων αὐτοὺς ἀποστήσῃ καὶ λογισμῶν, καὶ ῥημάτων, 454 K. TERZOPOULOS whichshallnottasteofdeath,tilltheyseetheSonofmancominginhis kingdom (Mt 16,28; parallels in Mk 9,1 and Lk 9,27), “hence, so that the passing of time may not possibly create unbelief in you”78, as Anastasius comments. He does not, however, neglect the uniquely Lucan reading of 9,30-31: “fortheplacewhereyoustandisholy(Ex 3,5), my presence on earth from heaven and the journey to Hades through death upon the Cross, regarding which Luke says: ‘MosesandElijah conversed with Christ on the maintain, speaking ofhisexodus of the soul and body which was to be accomplished atJerusalem in the passion of the Cross’”79. This interpretation is in concord with the patristic understanding of the Transfiguration as a prelude to the Passion80, even a prophetic image of it:

For today, on the Mount Thabor, the mystery of the life-giving Cross by death is delineated [diegraphē]; like on the place of a Skull, inthemidstoftwoliving beings (Hab 3,2; Ode 4,2) resembling the Cross thusly [stauroprepōs], standing between Moses and Elijah in a manner becoming of God [theoprepōs]; the present feast also points out another Sinai Mount, a mountain exceeding that of Sinai, much more wondrous in miracles and deeds, prevailing over the imitated theophanies, divine visions in types and shadowy vision of God81.

The apostle Peter’s words, Itisgoodforustobehere (Mt 17,4), form a second axis within the homily. Presented as a vivid ēthopoeia of the imagined thoughts going through his mind at the time of the transfiguration event, Peter’s internal musings as “the rock of faith […] with the rest of the chiefs of the new covenant present”82 gives way to a second extended ēthopoeia of Moses, “that chief of the Law, that divine initiate of the mysteries and seer of God, together with Elijah the Tishbite from Sinai, [who] as if fromstrengthtostrength (Ps 83,8), travelled the ether toward the Thaborian mountain”83. At this point Moses’ words at the burning

καὶ οἷον μεταχαλκεύσῃ πρὸς εὐανδρίαν τῆς δοθησομένης αὐτοῖς εὐκλείας ἐπιθυμίαν ἐντεκών. 78. Ἐπεί, ἵνα μὴ ἡ τοῦ χρόνου διάστασις ἵσως ὑμῖν τὸ ἄπιστον ἐργάσηται. Cf. GUIL- LOU, Lemonastère (n. 67), p. 241,14-15. 79. Cf. ibid., p. 251,8-12. 80. Cf. ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Hexaemeron VI, 214 (n. 32), p. 180; AUGUSTINE, Decivi- tateDeiXVIII, 32 (PL 41, 588); TERTULLIAN, ContreMarcion IV, 32, ed. R. BRAUN – C. MORESCHINI, SC 456, Paris, Cerf, 2001 (PL 2, 415B 10-11); MCGUCKIN, TheTransfigu- ration(n. 76), pp. 115-116. 81. Σήμερον [γὰρ] ἐν θαβωρίῳ τῷ ὄρει τὸ διὰ θανάτου ζωοποιὸν τοῦ σταυροῦ διε- γράφη μυστήριον· ὡς ἐν κρανίῳ ἐνμέσῳδύοζῴωνσταυροπρεπῶς, οὕτως ἐν μέσῳ Μωσῇ καὶ Ἠλίᾳ θεοπρεπῶς ἱστάμενος· καὶ δείκνυσιν ἡ παροῦσα ἑορτὴ ἄλλο τοῦτο Σίναιον ὄρος, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ τοῦ Σιναίου πολλῷ τιμιώτερον τοῖς θαύμασι καὶ τοῖς πράγμασι, ταῖς ἀντιμίμοις θεοφανείαις ἐκνικῶντα τὰς τυπικὰς καὶ σκιώδεις θεοπτίας. Cf. GUILLOU, Lemonastère (n. 67), pp. 239,14–240,3. 82. […] ἡ τῆς πίστεως πέτρα […] μεθ᾽ ὧν κορυφαίων τῆς καινῆς. Cf. ibid., p. 246,5-6. 83. […] ἐκεῖνος, ὁ κορυφαῖος τοῦ νόμου, ὁ θεῖος ἐκεῖνος τῶν μυστηρίων μύστης [καὶ θεόπτης], σὺν Ἠλιοῦ τῷ Θεσβίτῃ ἐκ Σιναίου πρὸς τὸ θαβώριον ὥς περ ἐκδυνάμεως εἰςδύναμιν αἰθεροδρόμησαν [ὄρος]. Cf. ibid., p. 246,5-9. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 455 bush that was not consumed serve as the focal point of Anastasius’ method and rhetorical refrain, or anaphora: Iwillnowturnaside,andseethis greatsight (Gen 3,3). The pairing of Moses and Peter seems to be Ana- stasius’ invention by way of pointing to the harmonization of the old and new covenants84. References to elements of Mosaic temple worship abound in this section; hence, extracts and allusions from the books of Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Isaiah, Numbers and Hebrews reveal Anastasius’ dedication to the close reading of Scripture and his reception of the well- established patristic typological form of exegesis. The statement that “the Old Testament and the Law were a shadow of the truth about the things of the Church of Christ” from the Hexaemeron85 is ingeniously and inspiringly placed in the mouth of Moses himself:

I will turn aside (diabas, Deut 3,5) from the types; I will turn aside from the shadows; I will turn aside also from the letter; I will come out of Egypt; I will turn aside from the Red Sea (Ex 14); [I will turn aside from Marah (Ex 15,23; Bar 3,23); I will pass by Sinai (Ex 16);] I will also pass by the dark cloud (gnophon) (Ex 19,16; Deut 4,11; Sir 45,5); I will pass by Horeb (Ex 17,6), also; I will turn aside from the rock, too; I will pass through the deserts (Ex 19,1; Deut 29,4); I will turn aside even from Amalek (Ex 17; Deut 25,17-19); I will turn aside from the ark also (Ex 24,10-16); I will abandon the tent (Ex 26,1-6), too; I will leave circumcision (Gen 17,9-14; Lev 12,3); I will pass by the Jordan (Deut 1,1; 2,29); I will pass through Ebal (Deut 11,29; 27,4 and 13); I will pass by Jericho (Num 22,1; 26,3; Deut 32,49; 34,1-8); I will abandon the temple (Ex 35–40); I will also abandon the sacrifices (Deut 1–3); I will turn aside from the shadows (Hebr 8,5; 10,1; Col 2,17); I will abandon the blood also (Lev 1); I will turn aside from the means of living; I will turn aside from the Cherubim (Ex 25,17-22; Ez 1,6-11; 10,14-22); I will pass by the first ; I will turn aside from the second Law and prophetic covering (Ex 27,16; 34,33-35; 40,5), and outer curtain (Hebr 6,19; 9,2; 10,20; Num 3,25) and inner veil (Ex 26,31-37; 37,3-16; 40), for now I see thee, the one who truly is and always will be, and who is existing with the Father and who said on the mountain, IamthatIam(Ex 3,14)86.

The homily ends in high rhetorical fashion, climaxing in ten khairetis- moifollowed by thirty heptasyllabic and then twenty-eight octasyllabic

84. Cf. MCGUCKIN, TheTransfiguration(n. 76), pp. 116-117. 85. ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Hexaemeron IV, 9-11 (n. 32), trans. p. 95. 86. Διαβὰς τοὺς τύπους· διαβὰς τὰς σκιάς· διαβὰς καὶ τὸ γράμμα· ἐξελθὼν τὴν Αἴγυ- πτον· διαβὰς τὴν ἐρυθράν· [διαβὰς καὶ τὴν Μερρᾶν· παρελθὼν καὶ τὸ Σινᾶ·] παρελθὼν καὶ τὸν γνόφον· καταλιπὼν καὶ τὴν Χωρήβ· διαβὰς καὶ τὴν πέτραν· διοδεύσας ἐρήμους· διαβὰς καὶ τὸν Ἀμαλήκ· διαβὰς καὶ τὴν κιβωτόν· καταλιπὼν καὶ τὴν σκηνήν· ἀφήσας περιτομήν· παρελθὼν καὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην· διελθὼν καὶ τὸν Γαιβάλ· παρελθὼν Ἰεριχώ· καταλιπὼν καὶ τὸν ναόν· καταλιπὼν καὶ τὰς θυσίας· διαβὰς καὶ τὰς σκιάς· καταλιπὼν καὶ τὸ αἷμα· διαβὰς τὰ τοῦ βίου· διαβὰς τὰ χερουβίμ· παρελθὼν τὸ πρότερον· διαβὰς τὸ δεύτερον νόμου τε καὶ προφητῶν κάλυμμα καὶ προκάλυμμα καὶ καταπέτασμα, νῦν εἶδόν σε τὸν ὄντως ὄντα καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ σὺν τῷ Πατρὶ ὄντα, καὶ ἐν ὄρει εἰπόντα· Ἐγώεἰμι ὁὤν. Cf. GUILLOU, Lemonastère (n. 67), p. 247,2-12. 456 K. TERZOPOULOS poetic verses before the concluding doxology, reminding us of the close relationship between epideictic oratory and poetic hymn. Anastasius’ intimacy with the Scriptures is often revealed in his meticulous, but sometimes well-hidden, allusions, such as the reference to the idolatrous human nature found in this homily:

Σήμερον ἡ ἐν τῷ ὄρει πρὸς τὰ ὄρη πλανῆτις[καὶλάτρις]καὶ εἰδωλολάτρις φύσις ἀναλλοιώτως μεταλλευθεῖσα, ἀνταυγαστικὰς θεότητος ἀπήστραψε λαμπηδόνας87. Today, the wandering[andserving]and idolatrous nature which was on the mountain and headed to the mountains, being changed unalterably, flashed forth with the sparkling brilliance of divinity.

The allusion is to Job 2,9d (κἀγὼ πλανῆτις καὶ λάτρις) and finds its parallels in Anastasius’ Hexaemeron:

The Church will endure in her firm state […]. For at first, she was out-of-place and unprepared, a wanderer, a handmaid, and a servant of idols [πλανῆτις καὶ λάτρις καὶ εἰδωλολάτρις] (Hex. IV, 571-575; trans. pp. 123-125). […] as if she [Eve] had said […] I became a wandering worshipper […] [πλανῆτις καὶ λάτρις γενομένη] (Hex. XI, 322-325; trans. p. 413).

This meticulous allusion leads me to comment regarding Anastasius’ vocabulary. While I have found no references to ancient Greek authors in any of Anastasius’ homiletic output, the theophany of the Transfiguration of Jesus seems to have inspired him to utilize some distinctive words reminiscent of a dream-like state, such as θεο͜είκελος88 and ἀμφιθέω89 – the latter also being found in Synesius of Cyrene and Paul the Silentiary90. Some phrases even need a moment of reflection to absorb their meaning, such as θεο͜ηλίους μαρμαρυγὰς τῆς παλιγγενεσίας, πάσας ἀμυδρῶς ὡς ἐν ὀνείροις τισί, τὰς ἐκεῖ σε βασιλείας καὶ πολιτείας91, and the βάτον πάλιν ὁρῶν, τὸ πῦρ ἔγχλοον, ἀνάλογον τῆς κατὰ σάρκα ἔμψυχον92.

87. Cf. ibid., p. 239,9-11. 88. Cf. ibid., p. 239,7. Also, s.v. θεοείκελος, in G.W.H. LAMPE, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford, Clarendon, 1961, p. 626; H.G. LIDDELL – R. SCOTT – H.S. JONES, AGreek- EnglishLexicon, 9th ed., Oxford, Clarendon, 1996, p. 790. 89. GUILLOU, Lemonastère (n. 67), p. 239,16; but Guillou divides the words. Also s.v. ἀμφιθέω in LIDDELL – SCOTT – JONES, Lexicon (n. 88), p. 91. Anastasius also used the term in his Hexaemeron VI, 367 (n. 32), p. 188. 90. C. PROCOPIUS, DescriptioSanctaeSophiae,München, E. Heimeran, 1977, p. 488; SYNESIUS OF CYRENE, Hymnoiemmetroi, Hymn 2, l. 165, ed. A. DELL’ERA (Classici greci e latini Classici greci, 3), Roma, In aedibus Tumminelli, 1968. 91. “He saw some sparks of the divine sunbeams of the future rebirth, all indistinctly, as in some dream of the thither kingdom and condition”. Cf. GUILLOU, Lemonastère (n. 67), pp. 244,14–245,1. 92. “Looking upon the bush again, seeing the greenish fire, an analogy of the ensoul- ment according to the flesh”. Cf. ibid., pp. 246,17–247,1. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 457

4. HomiliainpassionemIesuChristi(CPG 7754) The HomiliainpassionemIesuChristi, an unedited sermon of approximately 8,253 words, is preserved in at least two codices from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries belonging to the French National Library in Paris93. It expounds on the second Psalm of David, treating it as a psalm of prophecy regarding Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, as well as the fate of the Jewish people in history. The manuscript title stipulates its recitation on Good Friday. K.-H. Uthemann is preparing the editioprinceps and has addressed various aspects of its historical background and contents94 which need not concern our investigation of the homily here. The full title reads: Ἀναστασίου μοναχοῦ [καὶ πρεσβυτέρου] ἁγίου ὄρους Σινᾶ· ὁμιλία λεχθεῖσα τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλῃ Παρασκευῇ· εἰς τὸ πάθος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ· καὶ ἑρμηνεία εἰς τὸν β´ ψαλμόν. Allusions to historical persons and events like Titus Vespasianus and the first Jewish-Roman war95, as well as a reference to the building of the Dome of the Rock make for a fascinating read96. Yet, in order to fully appreciate this homily one must take into account its obvious relation to the dialogue genre, especially the adversusIudaeos literature97, which reaches back at least to the lost second-century Altercatio Jasonis et Papisci (CPG 1101)that Maximus the Confessor attributed to Aristo of Pella (ca. 140)98, and the DialoguscumTryphoneIudaeo (CPG 1076)of Justin Martyr (ca. 160). As things generally go with the adversusIudaeos dialogues, they are often not really dialogues99. This is the case both with our Inpassionem homily, as well as the DisputatioadversusIudaeos attributed to Anastasius (CPG 7772)100. They are more in the tradition of the Hodegos in that they are answers to possible or probable questions and

93. Paris.gr. 1504 (12th c.), fols. 148v-168 and Paris.gr. 979 (13th c.), fols. 210-230v. 94. K.-H. UTHEMANN, AnastasiustheSinaite, in A. DI BERARDINO (ed.), Patrology: The EasternFathersfromtheCouncilofChalcedon(451)toJohnofDamascus(!750), Cam- bridge, James Clarke & Co., 2006, 313-331, pp. 330-331, 355-367; UTHEMANN, Anastasios Sinaites (n. 4), pp. 335-341; 792-794. 95. Paris.gr. 1504, fol. 154r, col. a and Paris.gr. 979, fol. 217r, l. 16. 96. For the editor’s most recent discussion and a bibliography for this homily see UTHE- MANN, AnastasiosSinaites (n. 4), pp. 355-367. 97. A convenient bibliography in L.M. FIELDS, AnAnonymousDialogwithaJew.Intro- duction,TranslationandNotes (CCT, 6), Turnhout, Brepols, 2012, pp. 55-56; K.-H. UTHE- MANN, Anonymous7th-c.WorksAdversus Iudaeos, in DI BERARDINO, Patrology (n. 94), pp. 333-334. 98. J.E. BRUNS, TheAltercatio Jasonis et Papisci,Philo,andAnastasiustheSinaite, in TheologicalStudies 34 (1973) 287-294. 99. D.M. OLSTER, RomanDefeat,ChristianResponse,andtheLiteraryConstructionof theJew (Middle Ages Series), Philadelphia, PA, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994; A.L. WILLIAMS, AdversusJudaeos:ABird’s-EyeViewofChristianApologiaeuntiltheRenais- sance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1935. 100. PG 89, 1204-1281 (= MAI, 1831). Cf. SAKKOS, ΠερὶἈναστασίων(n. 4), p. 252. 458 K. TERZOPOULOS accusations that a Christian might receive from Jews. In other words, they are not transcripts of actual dialogues or even hypothetical dialogues. While they probably do reflect, in part at least, a desire to evangelize Jews, it has also been suggested that the adversusIudaeos dialogues are just as much rhetorical tools to strengthen Christians in a crisis of belief after the devastating defeats at the hands of the Persians and Arabs in the first half of the seventh century101 – a common theme in all Anastasian works. We should also point to a possible precedent in Anastasius’ early career (possibly even as a deacon) in Amathus, attesting to first-hand experience with Jewish conversion: in Narrationes II 17 (46-174)102 he is assigned the catechetical responsibility of a young Jewish refugee from the east by his beloved spiritual father there, bishop John. As with the interpretations of Scripture already mentioned in the above homilies, Anastasius’ treatment of Ps 2 in the present homily can be firmly placed within the tradition of patristic hermeneutics; it should also be noted that Ps 2 is treated in all seven adversusIudaeos dialogues. The fact that the second Davidic psalm was used by both of the chief apostles in some of the first recorded Christian sermons – namely, Peter’s prayer in Acts 4,24-30 (using vv. 25-26 of Ps 2) and Paul’s speech at Antioch in Acts 13,17-41 (using vv. 32-27 of Ps 2) – obviously set the stage for its interpretation as a prophetic and messianic psalm for all subsequent Chris- tian tradition103. As with the Homilia in sextum Psalmum, Anastasius’ analysis is a verse by verse running commentary pulling references and allusions from all corners of the Bible; however, the homily begins with a dramatic prooemium – a vivid ekphrasis – which opens at the moment of Jesus’ last cry upon the Cross before giving up the ghost using as its Scriptural foundation Ps 73,12:

WorkingsalvationinthemidstoftheearthChrist our God, the maker of heaven and earth; Workingsalvation ascending the height, and standing upon mount Sion, cried with a loud voice (Mt 27,50; Mk 5,7) and everything resounded. Heutteredhisvoice(Ps 45,7b), a voice of power; heutteredhis voice,andtheearthshook(Ps 45,7b). He cried, and the sun was darkened; he shouted, and the rocks were split in two; he shrieked, and the tombswere opened(Mt 27,50); he shouted, and raised the dead with him; he sounded, and Hades shook; he thundered, and theveilwasrent (Mt 27,51; Mk 15,38; Lk 23,45). Hecriedwithaloudvoice (Mt 27,50; Mk 5,7) and called the nations, and as creator assembled creation; for being nailed on the Cross and spreading his hands, he assembled everyone because upon the Cross they recognized

101. FIELDS, AnAnonymousDialog(n. 97), pp. 18, 34. 102. Ed. BINGGELI (n. 18), pp. 240-244. 103. For a summary of the use of Ps 2 in New Testament, early Christian and patristic interpretation cf. S. GILLINGHAM, AJourneyofTwoPsalms:TheReceptionofPsalms1and 2inJewishandChristianTradition, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 39-61, 66-67. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 459

him as God; everything hymned him; everything worshiped him; everything glorified; everything, to him the very God, proffered gifts: the heavens, covered the sun in shame; the angels, the mystery in the tomb; earth, Golgotha; the sea, the sponge; the waters, the reed; the pastures, the hyssop; the animals, the gall; the fruit, the vinegar; the wood, the Cross; the winged, Peter’s cockerel; the aromatic herbs, the myrrh. So, everything worshiped Christ, all things gathered together, as a dominical stadium and theatre: today the judge is being led to court; life itself tastes death; the magistrate is pulled to the place of judgement104.

In this “stadium and theatre” two categories of actors are then vividly, yet concisely identified. First is the rogue Israelite woman who strikes God – giving us yet another Anastasian reference to Melito of Sardis’ De pascha105 within the context of the Mk 14,65, Jn 18,22 and 19,3 references – and the “sordid” synagogue that holds up the Cross and mocks the Christ: “On Golgotha an imperial theatre, an angelic theatre, a mortal theatre, a Judaean theatre”106. The next category of those gathered is described in the following manner:

The Father peers out of heaven; the company of angels stand by; the Son of God voluntarily goes toward the contest, for our sake is stripped; the devil issues forth toward the deception; the Judaeans join it; the kings gather together; the priests assemble; the generals make ready for the campaign; the nations create a disturbance; the people cry out; the generals work

104. Εἰργάσατοσωτηρίανσήμερονἐνμέσῳτῆςγῆς Χριστὸς ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὁ ποιητὴς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς· εἰργάσατο σωτηρίαν ἀναβὰς εἰς ὕψος, καὶ στὰς ἐπ᾽ ὄρους Σιών, καὶ κράξαςφωνῇμεγάλῃ καὶ τὰ πάντα περιηχήσας. ἔδωκεν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ, φωνὴν δυνάμεως· ἔδωκεν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐσαλεύθη ἡ γῆ. ἐκέκραξε, καὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἐσκότασεν· ἐβόησεν, καὶ τὰς πέτρας διέρρηξεν· ἔκραξεν, καὶ τὰ μνημεῖα ἠνεῴχθησαν. ἐβόησεν, καὶ τοὺς νεκροὺς συνανέστησεν· ἐσάλπισεν, καὶ τὸν ᾅδην ἐδόνησεν· ἐβρό- ντησεν, καὶ τὸ καταπέτασμα διερράγη. Κράξαςφωνὴνμεγάλην καὶ τὰ ἔθνη ἐκάλεσεν, καὶ τὴν κτίσιν ὡς κτίστης συνήθροισεν· σταυρῷ γὰρ προσηλωθεὶς καὶ τὰς χεῖρας ἐκτεί- νας, τοὺς πάντας συνήγαγεν· πᾶσα γὰρ ἡ κτίσις ἐπὶ σταυροῦ θεὸν ἐγνώρισεν· πᾶσα ἀνύμνησεν· πᾶσα ἐπροσκύνησεν· πᾶσα ἐδόξασεν· πᾶσα αὐτῷ ὡς Θεῷ δῶρα προσήγα- γεν· οἱ οὐρανοί, αἰδούμενοι τὸν ἥλιον. οἱ ἄγγελοι, τὸ ἐν τάφῳ μυστήριον· ἡ γῆ, τὸν Γολγοθᾶν· ἡ θάλασσα, τὸν σπόγγον· τὰ ὕδατα, τὸν κάλαμον· αἱ βοτάναι, τῷ ὑσώπῳ· τὰ ζῶα, τὴν χολήν· οἱ καρποί, τὸ ὄξος· τὰ ξύλα, τὸν σταυρόν· τὰ πετεινά, τὸν Πέτρου ἀλέκτορα· τὰ ἀρώματα, τὴν σμύρναν· οἱ ἄνδρες, τὰς ὀθόνας· αἱ γυναῖκες, τὰ μύρα· τὰ πάντα τοίνυν, Χριστὸν προσεκύνησαν· τὰ πάντα ἡθροίσθησαν, ὅτι στάδιον καὶ θέατρον ἐν τῇ Σιών, δεσποτικὸν ἁθροίζεται· σήμερον ὁ κριτὴς εἰς κριτήριον ἄγεται· ἡ ζωὴ θανάτου γεύεται· ὁ δικαστὴς εἰς δικαστήριον ἕλκεται (Paris.gr.1504, fol. 248v, col. a, l. 17–249r, col. a, l. 25). 105. ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Hom.innouamdominicam (unedited), MosquensisSinod.gr.110 (9th c.), fol. 147v, col. a, ll. 29-31; Hom.inpassionemIesuChristi(unedited), Paris.gr. 1504, fol. 149r, col. b, ll. 1-3; MELITO OF SARDIS, OnPaschaandfragments, ed. S.G. HALL (Oxford Early Christian Texts), Oxford, Clarendon, 1979, pp. 735-737 and fragment 7; ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Hodegos XII, 2,18-19 and 3,66-67 (CCSG, 8). 106. Καὶ γίνεται ἐν τῷ Γολγοθᾷ, θέατρον δεσποτικόν, θέατρον τεθνικόν, θέατρον Ἰουδαϊκόν (Paris.gr. 979, fol. 211, ll. 6-8). 460 K. TERZOPOULOS

together; Sion is thrown into confusion; the city of David is insolent against the son of David107.

With the final category of those gathered at the Crucifixion Anastasius sets the context of his interpretation of Ps 2: he states that the graves were opened and the saints who had fallen asleep come out of the tombs and enter Sion. These include Abraham, who enters Golgotha “where he sac- rificed the type of the christ” (cf. Gen 22,1-19), and with him Isaac. Jacob enters, approaches the Cross that he prefigured in ancient times with the rod (cf. Gen 32,11). Jonah approaches “beholding the one equal to Jonah who was cast from the belly of the huge fish” (cf. Mt 16,4). Finally, David enters and sees it all: the state of unrest on Sion, the priests, the armies, the populace, the weapons, the cries, the strangers, the spear shafts, the riots, the cries, the noise, the insolence, the mania, the earthquake, the darkness, the councils, the interrogations of Christ, the mocking, the Cross, the condemnation: “And being simultaneously astonished and amazed at the unjust act of lawlessness, we cry out with David, saying, Whydothe nationsrage,andthepeopleimagineavainthing?”(Ps 2,1)108. Next comes Anastasius’ hook toward the dialogue when he states that the Holy Spirit in David’s prophecy is not speaking to the Jews, but is instead turning his face away from them, the lawless ones; he turns toward “us” Christians, asking, “Whydidtheevilnationsrageand the lawless people, the Judaeansimagineevilthings?”. From this point the homily moves into the dialogue style. But, as already stated, it is not really a dialogue; rather, it is a compilation of answers to accusations and questions that would have been brought up by a Jew. The pedagogical aspect109 of Anastasius’ goal is clearly stated at the homily’s conclusion (brackets are my own to clarify context): “The children of the Christians should learn to say these things to the children of the Jews. With those weapons [that is, the arguments laid out in the homily] the Church prevails against those who war against her. And purifying

107. Ἄνωθεν ὁ πατὴρ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ διακέκυφεν· ὁ τῶν ἀγγέλων δῆμος παρίσταται· ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς τοὺς ἀγῶνας ἑκὼν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀποδύεται· ὁ διάβολος πρὸς τὴν πλάνην ἐξέρχεται· οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τούτῳ συναγωνίζονται· βασιλεῖς ἁθροίζονται· οἱ ἱερεῖς συνέρχονται· στρατηγοὶ παρατάττονται· ἔθνη θορυβοῦσιν· λαοὶ βοῶσιν· στρατηγοὶ συντρέχουσιν· ἡ Σιὼν ταράττεται· ἡ πόλις Δαυῒδ κατὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ Δαυῒδ φρυάττεται (Paris. gr. 1504, fol. 149r, col. b, l. 10–149v, col. a, l. 1). 108. Καὶ θαμβηθέντες ὁμοῦ καὶ καταπλαγέντες ἐπὶ τῇ εἰς Χριστὸν ἀδίκῳ παρανο- μίᾳ, βοῶσι σὺν τῷ Δαυῒδ λέγοντες· Ἵνατίἐφρύαξανἔθνηκαὶλαοὶἐμελέτησανκενά; (Paris. gr. 1504, fol. 149v, ll. 12-17). 109. For a discussion of the use of pedagogical dialogue relevant to Anastasius’ chrono- logical era cf. Y. PAPADOGIANNAKIS, DialogicalPedagogyandtheStructuringofEmotionsin Liber Asceticus, in A. CAMERON – N. GAUL (eds.), DialoguesandDebatesfromLateAntiquity toLateByzantium, London, Routledge, 2017, 94-104; C. SCHÄUBLIN, Konversioneninantiken Dialogen, in ID. (ed.), Catalepton.FestschriftfürBernhardWysszum80.Geburtstag, Basel, Seminar für Klassische Philologie der Universität Basel, 1985, 117-131. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 461 their thoughts [of those who fight her], quench the wrath so as to ever shine and celebrate, through the grace and mercies…”110. The main crux of the prophecies referenced are used to support an interpretation of Ps 2 as foretelling what was to happen to the Jewish nation and people in history, because of their rejection of the Christ of God. Supporting prophetic references include Ps 78,1, Wis 2,12-20, 4,17-20, 5, an extended interpretation of Ps 88, Bar 3,38, Ps 71,8-17, and Ps 68,21-25 in conjunction with Isa 6,9 culminating with Isa 53,7-9. The texts are used as proofs that Jesus is the true son of God (Wis 2,12-20; 5), how he is the first-born of God the Father and of the dead (Ps 88)111, of his birth according to the flesh (Bar 3,38), how he came not to support the Law or the Temple, but to bring about a new covenant, a new people, a new church (Ez 11,19; 18,31; 36,26) and that all nations shall be his inheritance (Ps 2,8; 71,8-17). At verse 8 of Ps 2 (Ishallgivetheetheheathenforthineinheritance) Anastasius will opine:

So, ask as having become man and Ishallgiveyouthenationsasyourinher- itanceandtheuttermostpartsoftheearthforthypossession, for youshall shepherd your people as the good shepherd, withanironrod of your cross and mighty power; the Judaeans, youshallshatterthemasapotter’svessel. And rightly, as a vessel due to the vessel of vinegar that was on Golgotha then, from which they gave you, the Christ, to drink; a ceramic for the potter’s field bought for thirty pieces of silver with which they sold you, the potter-creator, for which in that field on Sion, in that place, there, as a clay vessel the Jews were shattered, where they slaughtered the Christ; there where they, too, the Jews slaughtered, witnessed to by [Flavius] Josephus the historian, who witnessed the corpses of the 110,000 killed by Titus and Vitellius Vespasian, kings of the Romans, executed directly after Christ’s passion, on the potter’s field. Since two Roman kings handed over the Christ, I say Pilate and Herod, the Jews were handed over to two Roman kings [Titus and Vitellius Vespa- sian]; they spilled Jewish blood as if it were water upon the blood of Christ. Witness of these things that same Josephus, writing of the destruction of the Jews, saying that it happened to the Judaeans because of the blood of Jesus the Nazarene; and this because they answered Pilate saying, Hisbloodbeonus, andonourchildren (Mt 27,25), but they say that the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem or their annihilation is not due to his blood or death112.

110. Ταῦτα μανθανέτωσαν λαλεῖν Χριστιανῶν παῖδες, πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαίων παῖδας. Ταῦτα τὰ ὅπλα κρατείτω ἡ ἐκκλησία κατὰ τῶν πολεμούντων αὐτῇ· καὶ τοὺς λογισμοὺς αὐτῶν καθαίρουσα, καὶ τὸ φρύαγμα σβεννύουσα καὶ εἰς ἀεὶ λάμπουσα καὶ ἑορτάζουσα· χάριτι καὶ οἰκτιρμοῖς… (Paris.gr. 1504, fol. 167v, col. a, l. 16–col. b, l. 3). 111. Cf. FIELDS, AnAnonymousDialog(n. 97), 120-121, p. 84. 112. Διὸ αἴτησαι ὡς γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος, καὶ δώσωσοιἔθνητὴνκληρονομίανσου καὶ τὴν κατάσχεσίν σου τὰ πέρατα τῆς γῆς· ποιμανεῖς γὰρ τὸν λαόν σου, ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός, ἐνῥάβδῳσιδηρᾷ τοῦ σταυροῦ σου καὶ δυνάμει κραταιᾷ· Ἰουδαίους δέ, ὡςσκεύη κεραμέωςσυντρίψῃςαὐτούς. καὶ δικαίως, ὡς σκεύη μέν, διὰ τὸ σκεῦος τοῦ ὄξους τὸ ἐν Γολγοθᾷ τότε κείμενον, ἐξ οὗ, σὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἐπότισαν· κεραμέως δέ, δι᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν 462 K. TERZOPOULOS

This same idea can be found in the AnonymusdialoguscumIudaeis113 where Isa 53,9 is used as proof: Ishallgivethewickedonesforhisburial, andtherichforhisdeath. Anastasius’ climax in supporting his interpretation of verse 8 (Askof me,andIwillgivetheetheGentilesforthyinheritance,andtheutmost partsoftheearthforthypossession) comes in a statement that is often utilized to try and situate the homily chronologically as a seventh-century composition114:

But now, behold, seven hundred years have passed, and idols were not worshiped, neither were idols venerated, but only the Lord God.

A similar phrase can be found in the DisputatioadversusIudaeos attributed to Anastasius:

And behold, for more than eight hundred years God has dispersed you throughout the earth, and Titus and Vespasian of Rome slaughtered myriads of you in Jerusalem, as Josephus related, the only writer to set out these thing regarding you; and they set on fire your temple, and stripped bare the sacri- ficial altar, and the holies, and the entire city, and Sion, and took you captive; and you are scattered and ill-used in all the earth115.

The adherence of the Church of Christ to his commandments and its way of life is used by Anastasius as a strengthening of the faith of Christians

ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως, ὃν ἠγόρασαν τριάκοντα ἀργυρίων, πωλήσαντες σὲ τὸν πλαστουρ- γὸν κεραμέα, δι᾽ ὃ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ ἀγρῷ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ Σιών, ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ τόπῳ, ἐκεῖ ὡς σκεύη κεραμέως Ἰουδαῖοι συνετρίβησαν, ἔνθα Χριστὸν ἔσφαξαν· ἐκεῖ καὶ αὐτοὶ κατεσφάγη- σαν, μάρτυς τῶν λεγομένων, Ἰώσηπος Ἰουδαίων ὁ συγγραφεύς. μάρτυρες τούτων τὰ κῶλα τῶν ριʹ μυριάδων, τῶν ὑπὸ Τίτου καὶ Οὐεσπεσιανοῦ τῶν Ῥωμαίων βασιλέων, ἀναιρεθέντων εὐθέως μετὰ τὸ πάθος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ δύο βασιλεῖς Ῥωμαίων παρέδωκαν, λέγω δὴ Πιλάτῳ καὶ Ἡρῴδῃ, δυσὶ βασιλεῦσι Ῥωμαίων παρεδόθησαν, καὶ ἐξέχεαν αἷμα Ἰουδαίων ὡς εἰ ὕδωρ ἐπὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ χριστοῦ· μάρτυρες τούτων ὁ αὐτὸς Ἰώσηπος, τὴν ἀνάλωσιν Ἰουδαίων συγγραψάμενος καὶ λέγων ὅτι ταῦτα δὲ συνέβη Ἰουδαίοις διὰ τὸ αἷμα Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου· οὕτως γὰρ προσηύξατο ἡνίκα τῷ Πιλάτῳ αὐτὸν παρέδωκαν λέγοντες· τὸαἷμααὐτοῦἐφ ᾽ ἡμᾶςκαὶἐπὶ τὰ τέκνα ἡμῶν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ χάριν τοῦ αἵματος ἢ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ φησίν, ἡ ἀνάλωσις Ἰουδαίων καὶ ἡ καταστροφὴ τοῦ ναοῦ, καὶ τῆς Ἱερουσαλὴμ γέγονεν (Paris.gr. 1504, fol. 160v, col. b, l. 4–161, col. b, l. 12). 113. AnonymusdialoguscumIudaeis IX, 37-161, ed. J.H. DECLERCK (CCSG, 30), Turn- hout, Brepols, 1994, esp. p. 82; FIELDS, AnAnonymousDialog(n. 97), p. 173. 114. Such historical references are common throughout the literature adversusIudaeos. Cf. V. DÉROCHE, Lapolémiqueanti-judaïqueauVIeetauVIIesiècle:unmémentoinédit, les Képhalaia, in Travauxetmémoires 11 (1991) 275-311, p. 281. 115. PG 89, 1237B: Ὅτι ἰδοὺ ὀκτακόσια καὶ πλείονα ἔτη ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ διεσκόρπι- σεν ὑμᾶς ὁ Θεός, καὶ ἤγαγε Τῖτον καὶ Οὐεσπασιανὸν ἀπὸ Ῥώμης, καὶ ἔσφαξαν ἐξ ὑμῶν κἂν ἑκατὸν μυριάδας ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις, ὡς λέγει ὁ Ἰώσηπος ὁ ὑμῶν συγγραφεὺς μόνος ταῦτα ἐκθέμενος· καὶ ἐνεπύρισαν τὸν ναὸν ὑμῶν, καὶ ἠρήμωσαν τὸ θυσιαστήριον καὶ τὰ ἅγια, καὶ τὴν πόλιν πᾶσαν, καὶ τὴν Σιών, καὶ ᾐχμαλώτευσαν ὑμᾶς· καὶ ἐστὲ ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ διεσπαρμένοι καὶ παρανομοῦντες ἕως τῆς σήμερον. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 463 suffering under Arab invasion based on Jesus’ words. It is a good example of how the homily is couched in the guise of a dialogue with a Jew:

He said to us, the nations, to offer and commune the bloodless sacrifice. So, has the word stood and is not his sacrifice in all the earth, or not116? He said the gates of Hades, that is all the nations shall not be destroyed; neither will the faith of his Church be destroyed, the sleepless Church of the Christians and the faith. Is it not so? Truly, it has stood and is not wavered. How many kings? How many powerful? How many world leaders, all the nations? How many tyrants? How many Gnostics? How many winters? How many persecutions, persecutors, waves, storms, lighting, lawless? Desired; rushed; weaponized; attacked; struggled against; fought; hunted. How many things constructed? Attempts to stop, erase, destroy, make disappear, ruin the Church of Christ and could not, but were themselves obliterated and overcome. Because of that voice of the Christ of God that says, Thegatesofhellshall notprevailagainstit (Mt 16,18). For God, the Son of God, is truthful117.

Toward the end of the homily Anastasius concentrates on Jesus’ own words from the Gospels as being prophetic, especially with regards to the “famed sanctuary (hagiasma) of the temple of God”, where he “foretold that thereshallnotbelefthereonestoneuponanother (Mt 24,2; Mk 13,3; Lk 21,6), but behold,yourhouseisleftuntoyoudesolate (Mt 23,38). The desolation of the temple cries out; is Christ the true God or not? Indeed, even ifyou Jews holdyour peace,thestoneswouldimme- diatelycryout (Lk 29,40) that it is by the blood of the Nazarene that it was desolated and will never be built”118. This is then used to respond to

116. Cf. ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Hom.innouamdominicam (unedited): Νῦν δέ, θείᾳ δυνάμει, ἐστηρίχθη ὁ λόγος τοῦ κηρύγματος καὶ ἐκραταιώθη ἡ πίστις ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ (Mosquensis,Sinod.gr. 110, fol. 156v, col. b, ll. 23-28); FIELDS, AnAnonymousDialog(n. 97), 119-270, p. 72. 117. Εἶπεν ἡμῖν τοῖς ἔθνεσι προσφέρειν καὶ μεταλαμβάνειν ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν· ἵστατο οὖν ὁ λόγος Χριστοῦ γενόμενος καὶ ἡ θυσία αὐτοῦ ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ, ἢ οὔ; εἶπεν ὅτι πύλαι ᾅδου, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ὅτι πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, οὐ κατισχύσουσιν οὐδὲ καταλύσουσιν τὴν πίστιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας αὐτοῦ· εἰστήκει ἡ ἄπτωτος καὶ ἀκοίμητος ἐκκλησία τῶν χρι- στιανῶν καὶ ἡ πίστις, ἢ οὔ; μενοῦν γε, ἕστηκεν καὶ οὐ σαλευθήσεται. πόσοι βασιλεῖς, πόσοι δυνάσται, πόσοι κοσμοκράτορες, πόσα ἔθνη, πόσοι τύραννοι; πόσαι γλῶσσαι, πόσοι χειμῶνες, πόσοι διωγμοί, πόσοι διῶκται, πόσα κύματα, πόσαι καταιγίδες, πόσαι ἀστραπαί, πόσοι ἄνομοι ἠθέλησαν, ἔσπευσαν, ὡπλίσθησαν, ὥρμησαν, ἠγωνίσαντο, ἐπο- λέμησαν, κατεδίωξαν, ἔπηξαν; παῦσαι, σβέσαι, καταλῦσαι, ἐξαλεῖψαι, ἀπολέσαι τὴν Χριστοῦ ἐκκλησίαν καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσαν, ἀλλὰ ἐξηλείφθησαν, κατῃσχύνθησαν. δι᾽ ἐκείνην τὴν φωνὴν τὴν Χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν λέγουσαν· πύλαιᾅδουοὐκατισχύσουσιναὐτῆς. ὁ θεὸς γὰρ ἀψευδής ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (Paris.gr. 1504, fol. 166v, col. a, l. 3–col. b, l. 14). 118. Ὅθεν περὶ τοῦ πολυθρυλήτου σου ἁγιάσματος τοῦ ναοῦ ὥρισεν καὶ προεῖπεν ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ἀψευδής, ὅτι οὐμὴμείνῃλίθοςἐπὶλίθον ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἰδοὺἀφίεταιὁοἶκος ὑμῶνἔρημος. βοᾷ ἡ ἐρήμωσις τοῦ ναοῦ· Θεὸν ἀληθεῖν εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν, ἢ οὔ; ἔστη- κεν ὁ τόπος ἔρημος. Φωλεοὺς ἀλωπέκων καὶ ἑρπετῶν καὶ θηρίων ἔχων, ἢ οὔ; Μενοῦν γε, κἂν ὑμεῖς [οἱ] Ἰουδαῖοι σιγήσητε, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ λίθοι κεκράξονται τούτων, ὅτι διὰ τὸ αἷμα Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου ἐρημώθημεν καὶ οὐκέτι κτιζόμεθα (Paris.gr. 979, fol. 229v, l. 18–230, l. 2). 464 K. TERZOPOULOS the Jew who says the temple is already being rebuilt in reference to the Dome of the Rock – an issue Anastasius refers to with similar wording in his Narrationes II 7,17-23119:

But, behold, you say, it [the Temple] is being built. What are you saying to me, oh foul and wretched one? The temple is not being built in Jerusalem. Which temple? When I see the arc of the covenant standing, when I see the glory of God overshadowing it from heaven, when I see the fire coming upon the altar from on high upon the altar of sacrifice, when I see the kings from the tribe of Judah, when I see your prophets and priests, when I see the cloud on the mercy seat, when I see the horn gushing forth and anointing your priest and king, then I will know that you have a temple: because without all that, as many temples as you build, they are stables and barns of dumb animals. But you shall never build a temple: Foryourhouseisleftuntoyoudesolate untotheages(Mt 23,38). Christ said it is abandoned unto to the age, that is, it shall not stand. The Christian youths [i.e., the children of the Christians] should learn to say this to the Jewish youths [i.e., the children of the Jews]120.

5. Homiliainnouamdominicametins.Thomamapostolum (CPG 5058; 7755; BHG 1837b)121 Very much in the spirit observed in the Sermodetransfiguratione, this panegyric of 5,352 words was undoubtedly prepared to be read on the New Sunday, the first Sunday after Pascha. It examines Jesus’ post resurrection appearances to the disciples on the same day of the resurrection, when Thomas is absent, and again on the eighth day, when Thomas was present (Jn 20,19-29; Lk 24,36-43).

119. Hence, if A. Binggeli’s speculations for Anastasius’ trip to Jerusalem from the beginning of the 690s are on the mark, this can be taken as a witness for the homily’s being composed in the latter years of his life: cf. BINGGELI, AnastaseleSinaïte (n. 18), pp. 225 and 358. 120. Ἀλλ᾽ ἰδοὺ κτίζεται, φησίν. Τί μοι λέγεις, ὦ ἀκάθαρτε καὶ πονηρέ; ὁ ναὸς οὐ κτίζεται ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ. Ὁποῖος ναός, ὅταν ἴδω τὴν κιβωτὸν τοῦ μαρτυρίου ἑστῶσαν, ὅταν ἴδω ἐξ οὐρανοῦ τὴν δόξαν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπισκιάζουσαν, ὅταν ἴδω τὸ πῦρ ἐξ ὕψους κατερχόμενον ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον, ὅταν ἴδω τοὺς ἐκ φυλῆς Ἰούδα βασιλεῖς σου, ὅταν ἴδω τοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἱερεῖς σου, ὅταν ἵδω τὴν νεφέλην εἰς τὸ ἱλαστήριον, ὅταν ἴδω τὸ κέρας ἀναβρύων καὶ χρίων τὸν ἱερέα καὶ τὸν βασιλέα σου· τότε οἶδα ὅτι ἔχεις ναόν· ἐπειδὴ χωρὶς τούτων πάντων, ὅσους ναοὺς κτίσῃς, στάβλοι καὶ φάτναι ἀλόγων εἰσίν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ κτίσεις ποτὲ ναόν· Ἀφίεταιγὰρ ὁοἶκοςὑμῶνἔρημοςεἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Εἶπεν ὁ Χριστὸς Ἀφίεται, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα οὐκ ἀνίσταται. Ταῦτα μανθανέτωσαν λαλεῖν Χριστιανῶν παῖδες, πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαίων παῖδας (Paris.gr. 1504, fol. 167r, col. b, l. 14–167v, col. a, l. 19). 121. All twenty known manuscript witnesses of this homily attribute it to John Chrysos- tom. It is only through the florilegium attached to John of Damascus’ third treatise Onthe divineimages that this homily can be connected to Anastasius Sinaita: JOHN OF DAMASCUS, Contraimaginumcalumniatores,OratioIII, 133, ll. 4-11, ed. B. KOTTER (PTS, 17), Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter, 1975, p. 197. The text under preparation by the present author shall be an editioprinceps. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 465

It is preserved in at least twenty manuscripts that I have been able to identify and collate122. The witnesses span from the eighth- to ninth- century palimpsest MountAthos,MegistesLaurasΩ81 that has survived in two pieces – the Paris.Suppl.gr.480 fragment and the now destroyed Chartres,Bibl.municipal1754 (only a partial transcription exists from the latter)123 – to other important witnesses, ranging from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries; their provenances include Mount Athos, St Stephanus at the Meteora, Jerusalem S. Savas, Argyropolis and Messina. In all cases, however, the homily is attributed to John Chrysostom. Except for the obviously clear affinity in style of expression with the other extant Anastasian homilies, a critical piece of external evidence comes from the third of John of Damascus’ Orationesdeimaginibus, where he appends a quote from this homily, conveying that the faithful prostrate before Christ’s image in veneration124. After a prooemium of about 280 words, which includes the theme of the eighth day and a comparison and typology of the two appearances of the risen Jesus to the disciples with his earthly ministry and second parousia yet to come, Anastasius spends the next, approximately 2,940 words of the homily examining the mainly Johannine narrative of the events along the following lines: the first appearance without Thomas in two sections, (a) Jn 20,19, (b) Lk 24,38-41 plus Mt 14,27 and Mk 6,50; and the appearance on the eighth day with Thomas present in three sections, (c) Jn 20,21- 23, (d) Jn 20,24-25, (e) Jn 20,26-29. The last 1,970 words spring out of the saying “Because thou has seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet believed” (Jn 20,29). That will serve as the basis from which he expounds his final point that, while the faithful may be zealous of those who actually saw, touched and heard the Lord, those who have not seen are in fact more blessed in that they believe without having seen. The bulk of the deliberation is a chain of proofs on not seeking after signs, sēmeiakaiterata (Acts 2,19.43; 4,30; 5,12; 6,8; 14,3; 15,2), regarding which God often gives dispensation for those who do not believe (1 Cor 14,22); those who believe without having seen, Anastasius holds, believe out of true devotion and work true miracles of love:

[…] and if you desire to become an unwavering wonderworker, I will show you how. If you bring someone from Hellenic disbelief to belief in Christ, behold, you have truly risen someone from the dead. If make the right hand

122. As a general reference see Pinakes, at https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/oeuvre/8269/. 123. F. NAU, AnalysedesmanuscritsgrecspalimpsestesParis,suppl.480etChartres, 1753,1754, in PO 4 (1908) 515-520. 124. Cf. JOHN OF DAMASCUS, Contraimaginum III, 133, ed. KOTTER (n. 121), p. 197; trans. D. ANDERSON, JohnofDamascus, OntheDivineImages:ThreeApologiesagainst ThoseWhoAttacktheDivineImages, Crestwood, NY, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980, pp. 104-105. 466 K. TERZOPOULOS

of one who loves money a hand giving alms, behold, you stretched out and healed the hand that was withered. If you teach the fornicator to be chaste, behold, you, too, have quenched and healed the wicked fire and fever. If you make the one who disobeys the divine Scriptures conscientious, behold, you have healed the deaf. If you have made the one lazy with regards to vigil zealous, you have truly healed a paralytic. If you have made the quick- tempered one meek, truly, you, too, have driven out a demon. Find me these kinds of wonderworkers; for they are the true standard-bearers (sēmeiophoroi) who have adorned their life through devout works and correct faith125.

It is also worth mentioning how Thomas’ eventual realization and belief from disbelief is an excellent example of Anastasius’ dogmatic exegesis or interpretation of scripture. We shall revisit the Homilia in nouam dominicam in more detail below.

6. Sermodepseudoprophetis (CPG 4583)126

The Sermon on the pseudo-prophets,with its over 8,700 words, reads very much like a last will and testament or hupotupōsis(cf. 1 Tim 1,6; 2 Tim 1,13). There are only about twenty manuscripts containing the entire homily in what seems to be closest to its original form. These witnesses range from the tenth to sixteenth centuries, but there are also another five manuscripts, stretching from the tenth to sixteenth centuries, containing only the homily’s second half. Two distinct and creatively abridged ver- sions of the homily appear in at least sixteen witnesses from the beginning of the fourteenth century. When rubrics do exist, the homily is set to be recited on the Sunday of Meatfare, when the Last Judgement and Sec- ond Coming are commemorated and the lectionary reading is taken from Mt 25,31-46127. Without exception, though, the entire manuscript tradition

125. Εἰ δὲ βούλῃ ἀπλανὴς σὺ γενέσθαι θαυματουργός, ἐγώ σοι ὑποδείξω τὸ πῶς. Ἐὰν ἐξ ἀπιστίας ἑλληνικῆς τινὰ Χριστῷ πιστὸν προσενέγκῃς, ἰδοὺ καὶ σὺ νεκρὸν ἀληθῶς ἀνέστησας· ἐὰν ἐκ πλάνης αἱρετικὸν ἐπιστρέψῃς, ἰδοὺ τυφλὸν ἐφώτισας· ἐὰν τὴν δεξιὰν τοῦ φιλαργύρου ἐλεήμονα ποιήσῃς, ἰδοὺ ξηρὰν χεῖρα ἐθεράπευσας καὶ ἐξέτει- νας· ἐὰν τὸν πόρνον σωφροσύνην γενέσθαι διδάξῃς, ἰδοὺ καὶ σὺ πονηρὰν φλόγα καὶ πυρετὸν ἔσβεσας καὶ ἐθεράπευσας· ἐὰν τὸν παρακούοντα τῶν θείων γραφῶν φιλόπονον ποιήσῃς, ἰδοὺ κωφὸν ὑγίωσας· ἐὰν τὸν ὀκνηρὸν ἐν ἀγρυπνίαις σπουδαῖον ποιήσῃς, ἀληθῶς ἰάσω παράλυτον· ἐὰν τὸν ὀργίλον ποιήσῃς πρᾶον, ἀληθῶς [καὶ σὺ] δαιμόνιον ἐξήνεγκας. Τοιούτους μοι ζήτει θαυματουργούς· οὗτοι γάρ εἰσιν οἱ ἀπλανεῖς σημειοφό- ροι, οἱ δι᾽ ἔργων εὐσεβῶν καὶ πίστεως ὀρθῆς τὸν βίον κοσμήσαντες (MosquensisSinod. gr.110, fol. 197v, col. b, l. 2–198r, col. a, l. 5). Compare this final exhortation to devout works and right faith to ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Quaestionesetresponsiones1,3-4 (CCSG, 59), p. 5 (trans. MUNITIZ [n. 19], pp. 51-52); Hodegos II, 6,20-21 (CCSG, 8), p. 60. 126. PG 59, 553-568 (= SAVILE, 1612). 127. The only exception to this is the Vat.gr. 1633 (11th c.), which sets its reading for the day before, Saturday of Cheesefare. The KrakowArt 43 (15th c.) calls for it to be read on the feast day commemorating the falling asleep of St John Chrysostom, 14 September. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 467 attributes the homily to John Chrysostom128. The full epigraph as it appears from the earliest witnesses is: Λόγος περὶ ψευδοπροφητῶν καὶ ψευδο- διδασκάλων καὶ ἀθέων αἱρετικῶν καὶ περὶ σημείων τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου. Most witnesses add: ἐῤῥέθη δέ, μέλλοντος αὐτοῦ ἐκδη- μεῖν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος129. The added subtitle referring to the author’s ensuing end of life comes directly out of the homily’s first lines:

It is a distressing word (logos), since it is the final one, as it has been made clear to me, but full of much joy. Distressing both because I shall speak to you no longer, but full of much joy because the time has arrived todepart andbewithChrist (Phil 1,23), and as the Lord said, HereafterIwillnottalk withyou (Jn 14,30)130.

The added inscription quoted above, “And it was said, as he was about to leave the body”, surely contributed to the Ps.-Chrysostomian attribution and recalls the famous father’s death in exile. There is nothing, however, keeping us from transposing the inscription as a reference to the ensuing end of Anastasius’ life. A. Whealey’s theory of Antiochene/Syrian prov- enance, based on the list of Orthodox paragons and some other internal considerations, while still “a Greek-speaking metropolis”, circa the last decades of the sixth century131, need not necessarily be a problem in asso- ciating Anastasius with its authorship if one keeps in mind both his own travels throughout Syria132, as well as the fact that the Church of Cyprus, despite its great degree of autonomy, was at that time still under the ulti- mate spiritual authority of the Patriarch of Antioch, from whence it received its chrism as late as 1860133; therefore, there is no reason to rule out a spiritual affinity Anastasius may very well have had with the ancient see. Furthermore, the parallels Whealey chooses with other related apocalyptic literature in the form of language referring to the apostle Peter can also be found in other Anastasian homilies134.

128. Cf. G. MORIZE, RapportsurunemissionenGrèce:Patmos-Athènes(Août-Octobre 1964), in Bulletind’informationdel’InstitutdeRechercheetd’HistoiredesTextes 14 (1966) 39-42; A. WHEALEY, Sermo de pseudoprophetisofPseudo-JohnChrysostom:AHomily fromAntiochunderEarlyIslamicRule, in Byzantion69 (1999) 178-186. 129. As it appears in Athens,EBE 210 (10th c.) and Vat.gr. 450 (11th c.). 130. Ὀδυνηρὸς ὁ λόγος, καθότι καὶ ἔσχατος, ὥς μοι δεδήλωται, ἀλλὰ πολλῆς χαρᾶς γέμων· ὀδυνηρός μεν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔτι λαλήσω πρὸς ὑμᾶς· καὶ πολλῆς δὲ χαρᾶς γέμων, ὅτι ἐφέστηκέν μου ὁ καιρὸς εἰςτὸἀναλῦσαι,καὶσὺνΧριστῷεἶναίμε· καὶ καθὼς εἶπεν ὁ κύριος, Οὐκέτιλαλήσωμεθ ᾽ ὑμῶν. Cf. PG 59, 553. 131. WHEALEY, Sermo de pseudoprophetis(n. 128). 132. An account of Anastasius’ extensive travels is sketched in BINGGELI, Anastasele Sinaïte (n. 18), especially vol. 2, pp. 357-362. 133. G.F. HILL, AHistoryofCyprus. Vol. 1:TotheConquestbyRichardLionHeart, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1940, pp. 274-278. 134. WHEALEY, Sermo de pseudoprophetis(n. 128), p. 182, to which I add GUILLOU, Le monastère (n. 67), p. 246,5-6. 468 K. TERZOPOULOS

In the first lines we read Anastasius addressing what seems to be a familiar audience, couching the entire homily within the context of a “final word” admonishing his spiritual children to be lovers of Christ (philokhristoi) by being lovers of books (philobibloi). Evident as the homily unfolds, he is referring specifically to the books of the Scriptures, the writings of the saints and the written lives of the saints, including the Ecumenical synods, three categories of writings to which, as witnessed to in Anastasius’ other writings135, he, himself, devoted much time and effort (skholēkaiprosedreia).

But again, I now speak to you with sorrowinmyheart (Rm 9,2) regarding the pseudo-christs (Mt 24,24; Mk 13,22) and pseudo-teachers (2 Pet 2,1) and godless heretics (Eph 2,12; Titus 3,10), regarding whom the apostle said, but evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived (2 Tm 3,13) about those things I have often reminded you. For by the grace of Christ I made many sermons, from which you have become lovers of God (philotheoi); and in almost every sermon I reminded you, if you recall the things said yesterday. For I know you recall, and especially the studious and lovers of books (philobibloi), who are also lovers of Christ (philokhristoi). For the lover of books (philobiblos) is rightly also called the lover of Christ (philokhristos), according to the master’s saying, that He that loveth me keepethmysayings;hethatlovethmeshallbelovedofmyFather (Jn 14,21 and 23-24); hethatlovethme,meditatesonmy lawdayandnight (Ps 1,2), meaning on the Gospel and the rest of the Scriptures. Hence, he has the remembrance of God inextinguishably in his heart; eagerly awaiting him from the heavens, continually watching for the hour of his coming, holding fast the sacred books and never neglecting the things in those formidable books, regarding which it is written, that thecourtwasseated,andthebooks wereopened (Dan 7,10). Do you see how much benefit it is to search the Scriptures, as you have often heard? What is it I say to you? That the divine Scripture left nothing out, passed nothing over in silence of the things advantageous to us, but everywhere cries out through the prophets and apostles, and him, the very master of all, proclaiming in advance and safeguarding in advance each thing as a mother loving and securing her own children, bearing witness beforehand and reminding regarding things past and things present, and not overlooking anything about the things to come – as was said before – of the things that are unto our benefit; and she is saying this not in secret, neither in a soft voice, but everywhere crying out in travail and in power through the Law and the prophets and the apostles and him, the master of all136.

135. For instance, see σύνοδος in ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Hodegos (CCSG, 8), pp. 372- 373. 136. Ἔτι δὲ νῦν λαλήσω ἐν ὀδύνῃ καρδίας περὶ τῶν ψευδοχρίστων καὶ ψευδοδιδα- σκάλων καὶ ἀθέων αἱρετικῶν. περὶ ὧν ὁ ἀπόστολος ἔλεγε· Πονηροὶἄνθρωποικαὶγόητες προκόψουσινἐπὶτὸχεῖρονπλανῶντεςκαὶπλανώμενοι, περὶ ὧν πολλάκις ὑμᾶς ὑπέμνησα. πολλοὺς γὰρ λόγους ἐποιησάμην χάριτι Χριστοῦ, ὡς καὶ ἐπίστασθε φιλόθεοι· καὶ σχε- δὸν ἐν ἑκάστῳ λόγῳ ὑπεμνήσαμεν, εἰ ἄρα μέμνησθε τῶν χθὲς εἰρημένων. οἶδα δὲ ὅτι APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 469

Anastasius then continues via a chain of Scriptural quotes from the Law, the prophets, the apostles and the Lord himself, in that order – just as he referred to them in the above excerpt. It is this employment of chains of quotes normally beginning from the Old Testament, often Isaiah and David, moving on to the Pauline, Petrine or Johannine epistles, and finally culminating in Jesus’ teachings from the Gospels that defines his method of Scriptural use in this homily. The acute character of denigration (psogos) in the Sermodepseudoprophetis shall be addressed below. Reference to the “many logoimade by the grace of God” and “the things said yesterday”137 give a clear impression of Anastasius addressing an audience attending a series of talks by him. The possibilities are, of course, legion. Could they be catechetical lectures for those to be baptized? The fact that all the preserved homilies apart from the Sermodetrans- figuratione can be connected to the Triodion period and culminate on the New Sunday circumscribes the very span covered by Cyril of Jerusalem’s Procatecheses and MystagogicalCatecheses (CPG 3585-3586). The point regarding the value of being a philobiblos will be resolved as an admonition to have the entire corpus of ecclesiastic literature as a check for one’s faith and life:

You have many faithful, beloved, even if they are not on earth, but in heaven; hasten to always be in agreement with them: you have there the festive assemblies of the angels; you have patriarchs, prophets, apostles, evangelists; you have martyrs, the holy confessors, and those eminent in the solitary life; a great crowd, whosenamesareinthebookoflife (Phil 4,3). Strive after them; imitate them; do not separate yourself from them; keep their memory in your heart night and day, always possessing in your hands their sacred books and reading their lives, so you may find much benefit138.

μέμνησθε, καὶ μάλιστα οἱ φιλόπονοι καὶ φιλόβιβλοι οἳ καὶ φιλόχριστοι. Ὁ γὰρ φιλό- βιβλος δικαίως ἂν κληθείη καὶ φιλόχριστος, κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον ὑπὸ τοῦ δεσπότου· ὅτι Ὁἀγαπῶνμε,τοὺςλόγουςμουτηρήσει·ὁἀγαπῶνμε,ἀγαπηθήσεταιὑπὸτοῦπατρόςμου· ὁ ἀγαπῶνμε,ἐντῷνόμῳμουμελετήσειἡμέραςκαὶνυκτός, δῆλον ὅτι ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ καὶ ἐν ταῖς λοιπαῖς γραφαῖς. ὁ γὰρ τοιοῦτος ἀνεξάλειπτον ἔχει ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ μνήμην· ἀπεκδεχόμενος αὐτὸν ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἀεὶ τηρεῖ τὴν ὥραν τῆς αὐτοῦ παρουσίας. πάντοτε ἐν χερσὶν αὐτοῦ κατέχων τὰς ἱερὰς βίβλους, καὶ οὐκ ἐπιλήσεται ἐκείνων τῶν φοβερῶν βιβλίων, περὶ ὧν γέγραπται· ὅτικριτήριονἐκάθισεκαὶβίβλοιἠνεῴ- χθησαν. Ὁρᾶς πόσον κέρδος ἐστὶ τὸ ἐρευνᾶν τὰς γραφάς, καθὼς πολλάκις ἠκούσατε; τί δέ ἐστιν ὃ λέγω ὑμῖν; ὅτι οὐδὲν ἐνέλειπεν, οὐδὲ παρεσιώπησε τῶν συμφερόντων ἡμῖν ἡ θεία γραφή, ἀλλὰ πανταχοῦ κράζει διά τε προφητῶν καὶ ἀποστόλων, καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ δεσπότου τῶν ὅλων, προαναφωνοῦσα καὶ προασφαλιζομένη ἕκαστον ὡς μήτηρ φιλότεκνος τὰ ἴδια τέκνα φιλοῦσα, προμαρτύρεται καὶ ὑπομιμνήσκει περὶ τῶν παρῳ- χηκότων καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐνεστώτων, καὶ περὶ τῶν μελλόντων μηδὲν παραδραμοῦσα, ὡς προείρηται, τῶν ἡμῖν συμφερόντων· καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐν κρυπτῷ λαλοῦσα, οὐδὲ μικροφω- νοῦσα, ἀλλὰ πανταχοῦ πόνῳ καὶ δυνάμει κράζουσα διά τε νόμου, καὶ προφητῶν, καὶ ἀποστόλων, καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ δεσπότου τῶν ὅλων. Cf. PG 59, 553-554. 137. PG 59, 553,11-15. 138. Ἔχεις πολλοὺς πιστούς, ἀγαπητέ, εἰ καὶ μὴ ἐπὶ γῆς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ· μεθ᾽ ὧν πάντοτε συνεῖναι σπεῦσον· ἔχεις ἐκεῖ πανηγύρεις ἀγγέλων, χοροὺς ἀρχαγγέλων· ἔχεις 470 K. TERZOPOULOS

Since none of the homilies seem to be uniquely directed toward monas- tics (i.e., via references to the expected requisite ascesis), could it be that the Sinai monastery contained a working catechetical school? Or could it be that Anastasius would set up a series of talks during his extensive travels, or was asked to lecture catechumens? There just isn’t enough evidence, making this line of thinking nothing but pure speculation, intriguing though it may be. After reviewing the signs of the eschaton in the second half of the homily, Anastasius will return to some of his most beloved themes also present in his other homilies, as well as the Quaestiones and the Narrationes. The thematic turn comes after he drives home the point that there is no escape from the final judgement.

You heard that no one has an excuse. Truly, brethren, Iamingreatstrait from every direction (2 Sam 24,24). But he rigorously responds: “Behold, you have sufficiently touched us with your speech and pointed out the gloomy things and delineated the punishments and exceedingly astounded and terrified us; and I know that it is truly thus. And I know that every one of us shall give account of himself to God (Rom 14,12), and each one shall reap what he has sewn, and every man shall bear his own burden (Gal 6,5). But as you declared these things and brought to fore and astounded and terrified, point out to us, then, also the way of salvation. Give also the wound’s healing: just as you told of the astonishing and gloomy and distressing, tell the things that gladden! Behold, I want to be saved. What should I do? How shall I be saved? What manner should I use? To whom shall I run? For I have sinned much in works and in words and in thoughts, willingly and unwillingly, at night and in the day and at every hour”. [Anastasius repeats the questions:] “What can I do? How can I be saved? To whom shall I run for refuge?” I will tell you where to run for refuge139.

πατριάρχας, προφήτας, ἀποστόλους, εὐαγγελιστάς· ἔχεις μάρτυρας, ὁσίους ὁμολογη- τάς, καὶ τοὺς ἐν τῷ μονήρει βίῳ διαπρέψαντας, πλῆθος πολύ, ὧντὰὀνόματαἐνβίβλῳ ζωῆς. Τούτους πόθησον· τούτους μίμησαι· τούτων μὴ χωρίζου· τούτων τὴν μνήμην ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου ἔχε νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, πάντοτε ἐν ταῖς χερσί σου τὰς τούτων ἱερὰς βίβλους κατέχων καὶ τοὺς βίους αὐτῶν ἀναγινώσκων, ὅπως εὕρῃς πολλὴν ὠφέλειαν. Cf. PG 59, 563,77–564,7. 139. Ἠκούσατε, ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἔχει πρόφασιν. ὄντως, ἀδελφοί, στενὰἡμῖνπανταχόθεν. Ἰδοὺ ἱκανῶς καθήψω ἡμῶν διὰ τοῦ λόγου και τὰ σκυθρωπὰ υπέδειξας καὶ τὰς κολά- σεις ὑπέμνησας καὶ τὰς τιμωρίας διεγράψω καὶ περισσῶς κατέπληξας καὶ ἐφόβησας. καὶ οἶδα ἀληθῶς, ὅτι οὕτως ἐστίν. Καὶ οἶδα, ὅτι ἕκαστοςἡμῶνπερὶἑαυτοῦλόγονδώσει τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ ἕκαστος θερίσει ὃ ἔσπειρεν, καὶ ἕκαστος τὸ ἴδιον φορτίον βαστάσει. Ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ταῦτα ἀπήγγειλας καὶ εἰς μέσον ἤγαγες καὶ κατέπληξας καὶ ἐφόβησας, ὑπόδειξον ἡμῖν λοιπὸν καὶ τῆς σωτηρίας τὸν τρόπον· δὸς καὶ τῆς πληγῆς τὴν ἴασιν. Ὥς περ εἶπες τὰ καταπληκτικὰ καὶ σκυθρωπὰ καὶ λυπηρά, εἰπὲ καὶ τὰ χαροποιά. Ἰδοὺ σωθῆναι θέλω· τί ποιήσω; πῶς σωθῶ; ποίῳ τρόπῳ χρήσομαι; πρὸς τίνα καταφεύξομαι; πολλὰ γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ἐν ἔργοις καὶ ἐν λόγοις καὶ κατὰ διάνοιαν, καὶ ἑκουσίως καὶ ἀκουσίως, καὶ ἐν νυκτὶ καὶ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ, καὶ κατὰ πᾶσαν ὥραν. Τί οὖν ποιήσω; Πῶς σωθῶ; Πρὸς τίνα καταφεύξομαι; Ἐγώ σοι λέγω πρὸς τίνα καταφύγῃς. Cf. PG 59, 565,52-70. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 471

Of course, Anastasius then presents another chain of Scripture verses from the Old and New Testaments, culminating once again in classical Anastasian themes140:

Therefore, start to repent; only make a beginning and theGodoftherepent- ant (Ode 12,13) will work with you (συνεργήσει) and strengthen and you will find much grace […]. The ways of life are many (Prov 4,10), as it is written, and many are the ways of salvation. Whichever way you desire, be saved; only be saved! If you have, give alms. If you do not have, God does not ask from you what you do not have. You do not have bread, but you have clothing. Bend your knees and beat your breast; bring tears; sigh; grieve; stretch your hands out to heaven and carry your gaze to the master; fast; keep vigil. […] Look to offer these things to God always, but these things with the purpose and discernment that needs to be kept so that you do not run mindlessly and toil in vain. Producing these virtues and offering to God repentance, carefully guard yourself and search yourself to make sure you have nothing against anyone so that your toil does not fall into the void141.

In the homily’s first section Anastasius uses Amos 8,11-12 as a proof revealing that the end times were upon them. The citation of Dan 3,37 seems to me a clear enough reference to the recent Arab invasions:

And truly, David’s prophecy has been fulfilled before us, the one that says: theyweremingledamongtheheathen,andlearnedtheirworks (Ps 105,35). For this reason, wehavebecomehumbledinalltheearthbecauseofoursins (Dan 3,37)142. And unto us have cometheendsoftheworld(1 Cor 10,11), as it is written. And the shepherds are wolves (Mt 7,15; Acts 20,29) and the sheep are oppressed; and famine is at the gates, notafamineofbread and a thirstforwater,butofhearingthewordof God (Amos 8,11) […]. And it shall be in thedaystocome,Iwillsendafamineintheland,notafamine ofbread,norathirstforwater,butofhearingthewordsofGod; andthey shallwanderfromtheeasttothewest, toseekthewordoftheLordandshall notfindit (Amos 8,11-12). Do you see that he does not speak about bread?

140. Parallels abound, but for a sampling cf. ANASTASIUS SINAITA, OratiodesacraSynaxi, PG 89, 845A; ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Quaestionesetresponsiones 47, t4 (CCSG 59, p. 100); 87, t3 (p. 139); Ap2, t3 (p. 172); Ap26, t1 (p. 229); QuestionsandAnswers, trans. MUNITIZ (n. 19), pp. 158-161, 213-214; Narrationes II 17; II 25; I 25bis, ed. BINGGELI (n. 18). 141. Ἄρξαι οὖν τοῦ μετανοεῖν· βάλε ἀρχὴν μόνον, καὶ ὁ θεὸς τῶν μετανοούντων συνεργεῖ σοι καὶ ἐνισχύσει σε καὶ εὑρήσεις χάριν πολλήν, […]. Πολλαὶ ὁδοὶ βίου, καθὼς γέγραπται, καὶ πολλοὶ τρόποι τῆς σωτηρίας. οἵῳ τρόπῳ θέλετε σώθητε, μόνον σώθητε. ἐὰν ἔχῃς, ἐλέησον· εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔχεις, οὐ ζητεῖ ὁ θεὸς ὅ οὐκ ἔχεις· οὐκ ἔχεις ἄρτον, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχεις ἱμάτιον. κλῖνον τὰ γόνατα, τύψον τὸ στῆθος· κατάγαγε δάκρυα· στέ- ναξον· πένθησον· ἔκτεινον τὰς χεῖράς σου εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, ἆρον τὸ ὄμμα πρὸς τὸν δεσπότην· νήστευσον· ἀγρύπνησον. […] ταῦτα σπούδασον προσαγαγεῖν τῷ θεῷ πάντοτε. ἀλλὰ καὶ ταῦτα μετὰ σκοποῦ καὶ διακρίσεως δεῖ ποιεῖν, ἵνα μὴ εἰς ἀνόνητα τρέχῃς καὶ εἰς κενὸν κοπιᾷς. ταύτας οὖν τὰς ἀρετὰς ποιῶν, καὶ τῷ θεῷ προσφέρων τὴν μετάνοιαν, τήρησον ἀκριβῶς καὶ ἐρεύνησον, μήποτε ἔχῃς ἔχθραν κατά τινος, καὶ ὁ σκοπός σου ἅμα εἰς κενὸν γένηται. Cf. PG 59, 566,39-56. 142. I.e. Song of the Three Youths v. 14; Ode 7,37. 472 K. TERZOPOULOS

Were that he spoke only of bread […]. This famine is the provider of every evil thing143.

The homily’s conclusion only drives home the possibility of its being a type of last will and testament, a final word, a veritable hypotupōsis, as suggested by the homily’s subtitle already discussed above:

Hasten always, therefore, to be ready, so when the one who demands your souls comes, he will find you ready in repentance; and I guarantee you that he shall not separate you from the saved. Always keep the Lord’s command, the Watchandpray,thatyeenternotintotemptation (Mt 26,41); and again, he says, Beyeready,forinsuchanhourasyethinknottheSonofman cometh (Mt 24,44). Give heed to the apostle, crying out, Praywithoutceas- ing (1 Thess 5,17). Think of what is meant by Without ceasing; it means always, ineverytime (Lk 21,36; Eph 6,18), and in the night and in the day, and eveningandmorningandmid-day (Ps 54,18), and in every hour, and while working and traveling and shepherding and plowing and sleeping and while awake. Do not neglect Sunday [the day of the Lord], or a feast, or a different place; for the divine is not bound by place: In his hand are the deep places of the earth (Ps 94,4). […] Give heed to what is written: Thetimeis short (1 Cor 7,29). […] Have David, the ancestor of God, as an example of repentance, urging us and supplicating and saying: Come,mychildren,listen tome(Ps 33,12);and I will teach you the manner of repentance, because I fell once, but through repentance I rose up, and I know the master’s philan- thropy. […] Let us prepare ourselves in advance: Letuscomebeforehis presencewithconfession(Ps 94,2).Ocome,letusworshipandbowdownto himandcrybeforetheLordourmaker. ForheisourGod;hecreatedus (Ps 94,6-7).[…] For he is theGodofpenitents(Ode 12,13); he welcomes us as penitents; andhewillshepherdusuntotheages(Ps 66,2)144.

143. Καὶ ἀληθῶς εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐπληρώθη ἡ προφητεία Δαυῒδ ἡ λέγουσα· Καὶἐμίγησανἐν τοῖςἔθνεσικαὶἔμαθοντὰἔργααὐτῶν. διὰ τοῦτό ἐσμενταπεινοὶἐνπάσῃτῇγῇσήμερονδιὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν. καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς κατήντησε τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων, ὡς γέγραπται. καὶ οἱ ποιμένες λύκοι καὶ τὰ πρόβατα συντετριμμένα· καὶ ὁ λιμὸς ἐπὶ θύραις, οὐ λιμὸς ἄρτου καὶ δίψα ὕδατος, ἀλλὰ λιμὸς τοῦ ἀκοῦσαι λόγον θεοῦ. […] Καὶ ἔσται ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις, ἐπάγωλιμὸνἐπὶτὴνγῆν,οὐλιμὸνἄρτουοὐδὲδίψανὕδατος,ἀλλὰλιμὸντοῦἀκοῦσαι λόγονθεοῦ· καὶ περιδραμοῦνται ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν ἕως δυσμῶν, ζητοῦντεςτὸνλόγοντοῦκυρίου καὶοὐμὴεὕρωσιν. Ὁρᾷς, ὅτι οὐ περὶ ἄρτου λέγει; εἴθε γὰρ περὶ τοῦ ἄρτου ἔλεγεν. […] οὗτος ὁ λιμός ἐστιν ὁ χορηγὸς παντὸς πονηροῦ πράγματος. Cf. PG 59, 555,4-25. 144. Σπούδασον οὖν πάντοτε ἕτοιμος εἶναι, ἵνα ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ ἀπαιτῶν σου τὴν ψυχήν, εὕρῃ σε ἕτοιμον ἐν τῇ μετανοίᾳ· κἀγὼ ἐγγυῶμαί σοι ὅτι οὐ μή σε χωρίσῃ τῶν σῳζο- μένων. Τήρησον ἀεὶ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἐντολήν, τό· Γρηγορεῖτεκαὶπροσεύχεσθε,ἵναμὴ εἰσέλθητεεἰςπειρασμόν. καὶ πάλιν λέγει· Γίνεσθεἕτοιμοι,ὅτιᾗὥρᾳοὐδοκεῖτε,ὁυἱὸςτοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται. Ἄκουσον καὶ τοῦ ἀποστόλου βοῶντος· Ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθε. νοεῖτε τί ἐστι τό, Ἀδιαλείπτως· τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι, πάντοτε, ἐνπαντὶκαιρῷ, καὶ ἐν νυκτὶ καὶ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ, καὶ ἑσπέραςκαὶπρωῒκαὶμεσημβρίας, καὶ κατὰ πᾶσαν ὥραν, καὶ ἐργαζόμενος καὶ ὁδεύων καὶ ποιμαίνων καὶ ἀροτριῶν καὶ κοιμώμενος καὶ ἀνιστάμενος. Μὴ ἀναμείνῃς Κυριακήν, ἢ ἑορτήν, ἢ τόπου διαφοράν· οὐ γὰρ ἐν τόπῳ περιγράφεται τὸ θεῖον· ἐν γὰρ χειρὶαὐτοῦτὰπέρατατῆςγῆς. […] Ἀκούσατε τὸ γεγραμμένον· ὁκαιρὸςσυνεσταλμένος ἐστίν. […] τῆς δὲ μετανοίας τὸν θεοπάτορα Δαυῒδ ἔχετε· οὗτος γὰρ τύπος μετανοίας APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 473

One more of Anastasius’ “signs” of the consummation having arrived is worthy of note here, as it is the pole around which his most stinging censure (psogos) is aimed, after the heretics:

For tears come to me when I hear some from my church saying, “Do not utter these things in the divine Scriptures”. And this comes not only from the lay people, but from those who are supposed to be shepherds, maintaining the places of the apostles and prophets, but not the ways, toward whom it is suitable to say: Woe unto you, ye blind guides (Mt 23,16 and 24) and unlearned and unstable, who embellish garments and not books, who abandon the word of God serving their belly, whose God is their belly and glory, who consume the milk and the wool and the meats of the flock, but take no thought for the sheep regarding which they shall undergo punishment in the great day145.

Anastasius’ lament of the present state of Church affairs holds back no punches and is painfully outspoken, no doubt expressing highly personal frustrations built up over the years. For example, after listing some of the antichrists of the past (1 Jn 2,18), like Manes, Basilides, Nero, Julian, Arius and others, he compares the present bishops to his list of paragons, Euodius, Dionysius, Athanasius, Ephraem, etc.146, and laments:

Do you see how much is inbetween, and how different from those blessed and holy men from those of today? I knew even other god-bearing teachers, but it is enough for now. They, as it is said, gave their soul for the sheep; but these, leaving the sheep, fled; they were strong in word and in works; these in wealth and landed property, and in horses and mules and serfs and flocks and kitchens with lavish tables? Much is the word in them regarding these things each day and night. But regarding the rational sheep, no one, regarding which an account shall be requested on that great day of judgement. Then if someone asks them about books, they respond, saying: I am poor, and have not the means to attain a book. But then they do not go about as poor, but

ἡμῖν γέγονε, παραινῶν ἡμῖν καὶ παρακαλῶν καὶ λέγων· Δεῦτετέκνα,ἀκούσατέμου· κἀγὼ ὑποδείξω ὑμῖν τὸν τρόπον τῆς μετανοίας ἐπειδὴ κἀγώ ποτε ἐσκελίσθην, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς μετανοίας ἀνέστην καὶ γινώσκω τὴν τοῦ δεσπότου φιλανθρωπίαν. […] Προετοιμάσω- μεν ἑαυτούς· προφθάσωμεντὸπρόσωποναὐτοῦἐνἐξομολογήσει.Δεῦτεπροσκυνήσωμενκαὶ προσπέσωμεναὐτῷκαὶκλαύσωμενἐναντίονκυρίουτοῦποιήσαντοςἡμᾶς.ὅτιαὐτόςἐστινὁ Θεὸςἡμῶν· […] Αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁΘεὸςτῶνμετανοούντων· αὐτὸς προσδέχεται ἡμᾶς μετανοοῦντας· αὐτὸςκαὶποιμανεῖἡμᾶςεἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας. Cf. PG 59, 567,4-19.32-33; 568,10- 16.26-36. 145. Ἐμοὶ δὲ δακρύειν ἐπέρχεται ὅταν ἀκούσω ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας ἐκκλησίας τινῶν λεγόντων· Μὴ εἰρῆσθαι ταῦτα ἐν ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς. καὶ τοῦτο οὐ μόνον παρὰ λαϊκῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρὰ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναι ποιμένων, καὶ τόπους ἐπεχόντων ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τρόπους· πρὸς οὓς εὔκαιρον εἰπεῖν· Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοὶ καὶ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι, οἱ ἱματίων καλλωπισταὶ καὶ οὐχὶ βιβλίων· οἱ καταλιπόντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τῇ γαστρὶ διακονοῦντες, ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία καὶ ἡ δόξα· οἱ τὸ γάλα καὶ τὸ ἔριον καὶ τὰ κρέη τῆς ποίμνης καταχρώμενοι, περὶ δὲ τῶν προβάτων οὐ φροντί- ζοντες, περὶ ὧν λόγον ὑφέξετε ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ ἡμέρᾳ. Cf. PG 59, 556,32-44. 146. WHEALEY, Sermo de pseudoprophetis(n. 128), pp. 178-179, 182. 474 K. TERZOPOULOS

wearing resplendent garments and gloves covering the fingers, large purses and necks as those of parasitic bulls, dragging about crowds of disciples, but more likely cooks. […] Oh, deep shame; oh, evil abundance! Oh, what avarice; oh, insatiable belly! Well then, hence are the scandals, whispers, reproaches, abuse, uproars. Then, when accused, they respond: I do wrong to no one; I have authority over my wealth. Then, if one of the godless heretics appears speaking the perversions, none are the opponent; the struggler is nowhere to be found. Then they all become poor, all are inclined to silence, all are deserters. […] But woe to you, who, the luxuriated and elevated now in gold and garments beautified with many colors. How will you show the good poverty of Christ, who made himself poor for us and told his disciples to have no copper in their belts. Truly, you are misled, not understanding the Scriptures; you do not hear the Lord, saying,Blessedarethepoor. […] but you also [shall be judged] regarding yourselves and regarding the sheep, archpriests and priests, and deacons, each one as has been entrusted147.

This review of Anastasius’ six known homiletic works for the purpose of sketching their basic thematic ranges and simultaneously calling attention to a spectrum of ways he utilizes Scripture allows us to now offer some form of overall portrayal of his method of Scriptural appropriation which I shall characterize as anagogic or spiritual. While we have so far identified allegory, typology and even some literalism sprinkled throughout the homiletic corpus, selections from two Anastasian homilies offered above I take as being especially helpful in this pursuit of some arching

147. Ὁρᾷς πόσον τὸ μέσον, καὶ πόση διαφορὰ ἐκείνων τῶν μακαρίων καὶ ἁγίων ἀνδρῶν παρὰ τῶν νῦν; Οἶδα καὶ ἄλλους θεοφόρους διδασκάλους ἀλλὰ ἀρκεῖ πρὸς τὸ παρὸν τέως. ἐκεῖνοι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτῶν, καθὼς προείρηται, ἔθηκαν ὑπὲρτῶνπροβάτων· οὗτοι δὲ ἀφέντες τὰ πρόβατα ἔφυγον· ἐκεῖνοι δυνατοὶ καὶ ἐν λόγῳ καὶ ἐν ἔργῳ· οὗτοι ἐν χρήμασι καὶ ἐν κτήμασι, καὶ <περὶ> ἵππων καὶ ἡμιόνων καὶ ἀρούρων καὶ ποιμνίων καὶ μαγείρων <ἐν> λαμπραῖς τραπέζαις; πολὺς ὁ λόγος ἐν αὐτοῖς περὶ τούτων καθ᾽ ἑκά- στην ἡμέραν καὶ νύκτα. Περὶ δὲ τῆς λογικῆς ποίμνης λόγος οὐδείς, περὶ ἧς λόγον ἀπαιτηθήσονται ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κρίσεως. Εἶτα ἐάν τις ἐρωτήσῃ αὐτοὺς περὶ βιβλίων, ἀποκρίνονται λέγοντες· Πτωχός εἰμι, οὐκ εὐπορῶ βιβλίον κτήσασθαι. Εἶτα περιέρχονται οὐχ ὡς πτωχοί, ἀλλ᾽ ἱμάτια φοροῦντες ἔκστιλβα καὶ χειρίδια ἕως τῶν δακτύλων, βαλάντια ἀδρὰ καὶ τραχήλους ὡς παρασίτων ταύρων, μαθητῶν πλῆθος ἐπι- συρόμενοι, μᾶλλον δὲ μαγείρων. […] Ὢ τῆς βαθείας αἰσχύνης· ὢ τῆς κακῆς εὐπορίας! ὢ τῆς φιλαργυρίας· ὢ τῆς ἀπληρώτου γαστρός! Λοιπὸν ἐκεῖθεν σκάνδαλα, ψιθυρισμοί, ὀνείδη, λοιδορίαι, θόρυβοι. Εἶτα ἐγκαλούμενοι ἀποκρίνονται· Οὐκ ἀδικῶ τινα· ἐξου- σίαν ἔχω τῶν ἐμῶν χρημάτων. Εἶτα ἐάν τις τῶν ἀθέων αἱρετικῶν παραφανῇ λαλῶν διεστραμμένα, ὁ ἀντιλέγων οὐδείς, ὁ πολεμῶν οὐδαμοῦ. Πάντες πτωχοὶ τότε γίνονται, πάντες σιωπητικοί, πάντες φυγάδες. […] ἀλλ᾽ οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, οἱ τρυφῶντες καὶ μετεωριζόμε- νοι νῦν χρυσῷ καὶ ἱματίοις ποικίλοις καλλωπιζόμενοι. Πῶς ἄλλοις δείξητε τὴν καλὴν πτωχείαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ δι᾽ ἡμᾶς πτωχεύσαντος, τοῦ ἐντειλαμένου τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ μὴ ἔχεις χαλκὸνεἰςτὰςζῶνας. Ὄντως πλανᾶσθε, μὴ νοοῦντες τὰς γραφάς· οὐκ ἀκούετε τοῦ κυρίου λέγοντος, ὅτι· Μακάριοιοἱπτωχοί. […] ὑμεῖς δὲ καὶ ὑπὲρ ἑαυτῶν καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων, ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ ἱερεῖς, καὶ διάκονοι, ἕκαστος καθὼς ἐπιστεύθη. Cf. PG 59, 560,51–561,19. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 475 conclusion: specifically, the Homiliadesacrasynaxi and Sermodepseudo- prophetis. In both these homilies Anastasius gives explicit reasons for the study of Scripture. In the Homiliadesacrasynaxi we read the following:

For except that one gives leisure [skholēs] and much attention [prosedreias] in prayer and the reading of divine Scriptures, neither will they receive their petitions, nor will they truly come to know God148.

From the Sermodepseudoprophetis, I point to a section already quoted above, beginning “Do you see how much benefit”, where Anastasius comments that all the different types of Scripture, the Law, prophets, apostles and Gospels, containing the words of the master, Jesus himself, is “as a mother, loving and securing her own children, bearing witness beforehand and reminding regarding things past and things present, and not overlooking anything about the things to come”149. In both these quotes and, I argue, throughout Anastasius’ writings the take-away from the study of holy Scripture for him is its application, whether that be the reception of one’s petitions or the protection from error; the purpose is to come to know God and to live and act in that knowledge. This “method” or attitude toward Scripture, of course, is detected in other Anastasian writings as well. In the Quaestionesetresponsiones and Hodegos we find the understanding of Scripture as something revealed to those in whom God dwells and who read Scripture with a simple heart and not by mere words, but in action and experience150. If we can finally consider the Hexaemeron as an authentic Anastasian work, as D. Zaganas has recently suggested151, then I would not hesitate to clearly label Anastasius’ application of Scripture in his homiletic corpus as spiritual anagogy. In his quest to build up the people of God he constantly reaches for “the uplifting significance” (κατὰ ἀναγωγὴν νοῆσαι)152 while always remaining true to the literal meaning153. This flexible style of exegesis is also considered to be active in the work of Maximus Confessor154.

148. Ἐκτὸς μὲν γὰρ σχολῆς καὶ πολλῆς τῆς προσεδρείας τῆς ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς, καὶ ἐν ταῖς θείαις τῶν γραφῶν ἀναγνώσεσιν, οὐκ ἔστιν οὔτε τὰ αἰτήματα λαβεῖν, οὔτε τὸν θεὸν ἀληθῶς ἐπιγνῶναι. Cf. PG 89, 828A. 149. See p. 468 and n. 136. Cf. PG 59, 553,27–554,5. 150. ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Quaestionesetresponsiones (CCSG, 59) 22; 28,1-2; 3,4; 59; a26,1-2; Hodegos (CCSG, 8) I, 1,13-14; XXII, 4,1-11; III, 1,86-91. 151. D. ZAGANAS, TheAuthenticityofAnastasiusSinaita’sHexaemeron(CPG7770), in REB 73 (2015) 189-201; Encoresurl’authenticitédel’Hexaémérond’AnastaseleSinaïte, in ByzantinischeZeitschrift 110 (2017) 755-777. 152. ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Hexaemeron VIIb, 350-354 (n. 32). 153. Ibid. I, 329-331, 729-730; III, 11-12; VIIb, 316-321, 350-354. 154. P.M. BLOWERS, TheAnagogicalImagination:MaximustheConfessorandthe LegacyofOrigenianHermeneutics, in G. DORIVAL – A. LE BOULLUEC (eds.), Origeniana sexta:OrigèneetlaBible.ActesduColloquiumOrigenianumSextum,Chantilly,30août– 476 K. TERZOPOULOS

II. RHETORICAL STYLE155

1. Context With regards to his rhetorical appropriations and style, the study of Ana- stasius’ homiletic corpus fills a literary lacuna for the Byzantine so-called “dark century” (ca. 650-775)156. Tucked between Maximus Confessor, Sophronius of Jerusalem, John Moschus, John Climacus and the Amathu- sians, John the Merciful and Leontius of Neapolis, on the one side, and Andrew of Crete, Germanus of Constantinople and John of Damascus on the other it follows that the value of Anastasius’ homiletic works to scholars of philosophy, historians and theologians, but also those interested in the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition, obviously, cannot be underesti- mated. Anastasius’ writings are an essential witness to a time of upheaval following the Persian and Arab Muslim upheavals of the seventh century and have been specifically designated as a key resource for historians and theologians interested in the period157. Immersed in a rapidly changing world, Anastasius’ homiletic writing style and thought, as reflected in the works currently available, reveals a dynamic creativity emerging out of the classical Hellenic forms of dialogue and rhetorical formality as they evolved via the patristic literary tradition that preceded him and with which he was obviously intimately acquainted. At the same time, it con- veys personal attitudes and pastoral counsel regarding religion and belief,

3septembre1993 (BETL, 118), Leuven, Peeters – Leuven University Press, 1995, 639-654; ID., ExegesisandSpiritualPedagogyinMaximustheConfessor:AnInvestigationofthe Quaestiones ad Thalassium (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity, 7), Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 1991, pp. 184-193. 155. I express here my sincere gratitude to Prof. V. Valiavitcharska who provided me with many essential resources used in this section of the paper, as well as her invaluable discussions through private correspondence. 156. For an overview, discussions and bibliography cf. A.P. KAZHDAN (with L.F. SHERRY – C. ANGELIDĒ), AHistoryofByzantineLiterature,650-850 (Research Series, 2), Athens, The National Hellenic Research Foundation; Institute for Byzantine Research, 1999, pp. 137- 165; E. CHRYSOS, IlluminatingDarknessbyCandlelight:LiteratureintheDarkAges, in P. ODORICO – P.A. AGAPITOS (eds.),Pourune«nouvelle»histoiredelalittératurebyzantine: problèmes,méthodes,approches,propositions.Actesducolloqueinternationalphilologique, Nicosie-Chypre,25-28mai2000, Paris, Centre d’études byzantines, néo-helléniques et sud- est européennes, EHESS, 2002, 13-24; N.B. TOMADAKES, Ἡ δῆθεν«μεγάλη σιγὴ» τῶν γραμμάτωνἐνΒυζαντίῳ(650-850), in ἘπετηρὶςἙταιρείαςΒυζαντινῶνΣπουδῶν 38 (1971) 5-26; S. WAHLGREN, ByzantineLiteratureandtheClassicalPast, in E.J. BAKKER(ed.), ACompaniontotheAncientGreekLanguage, Oxford, Blackwell, 2010, 527-538; A. CAMERON, NewThemesandStylesinGreekLiterature:Seventh–EighthCenturies, in ID. – L.I. CON- RAD (eds.), TheByzantineandEarlyIslamicNearEast.I:ProblemsintheLiterarySource Material (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 1), Princeton, NJ, Darwin Press, 1992, 81-105, especially pp. 85-92. 157. J. HALDON, TheWorksofAnastasiusofSinai:AKeySourcefortheHistoryofthe Seventh-CenturyEastMediterraneanSocietyandBelief, in CAMERON – CONRAD (eds.), The ByzantineandEarlyIslamicNearEast(n. 156), 107-148. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 477 society and state, cultural infrastructure and hierarchy as they were evidently all intensely active in the Cyprus of his youth158, but also in the air throughout the Christian East from Syria to Palestine and Egypt, perceptibly also in his adopted home of the Sinai desert. The two collections of Narrationes159 by Anastasius the chronicler and hagiographer reveal his encounters with holy men and ascetic strugglers, as well as his own monastic mental culture and paedeia. The Hodegos (CPG 7745) and Sermones (CPG 7747-7749; 7756)treatises of Anastasius the controversialist and defender of Chalcedonian Christology are a distinct record of his vast experience and skills in deliberative and forensic oratory. The Quaestionesetresponsiones (CPG 7746) of Anastasius the spiritual father and pedagogue reveals an intimate relationship with the faithful, as has been pointed out by J. Munitiz160, one that would be entirely in line with that of a father-confessor and experienced elder (gerōn) to his spiritual children. The facet, however, of Anastasius the homilist as trans- mitted through the diminutive, yet for that very reason significant group of six homilies reveals to us yet another aspect of the eventual Sinai monk from Amathus’ multifaceted ecclesiastical ministry and education from his youth. Although we know nothing regarding the sponsorship or breadth of his schooling, these six homilies unanimously reveal an Anastasius who received the full cycle of classical literary paedeia of his time and who obviously excelled under the tutelage of his grammatikos161, his homiletic works witnessing to the entire spectrum of his skill in epideictic oratory: of enkōmion (praise) with its opposite, psogos (denigration), in addition to sumboulē(advice) as it was handed down from the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition beginning with Aristotle162, but most especially through the Hermogenic corpus as adapted to the Christian epideictic panegyric163.

158. D. KRUEGER, SymeontheHolyFool:Leontius’sLifeandtheLateAntiqueCity (Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 25), Berkeley, CA – London, University of California Press, 1996, pp. 1-18. 159. Collection I is a set of narratives concerning fathers Anastasius encountered in the Sinai desert and Collection II is a set of narratives from diverse places of Anastasius’ lifetime (include his homeland of Amathus) “edifying and profitable to the soul”; both are edited by BINGGELI (n. 18). 160. Cf. MUNITIZ, AnastasiosofSinai:Speaking (n. 36). 161. H.I. MARROU, AHistoryofEducationinAntiquity, trans. G. Lamb (Wisconsin Studies in Classics), Madison, WI, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1982; T. MORGAN, LiterateEducationintheHellenisticandRomanWorlds (Cambridge Classical Studies), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp. 190-234; V. VALIAVITCHARSKA, Rhetoric intheHandsoftheByzantineGrammarian, in Rhetorica:AJournaloftheHistoryof Rhetoric 31 (2013) 237-260. 162. For instance, section four (Chapter 1.9) on Display or Epideictic Oratory, in Aristotle, TheArtofRhetoric, trans. H.C. LAWSON-TANCRED, London – New York, Penguin, 1991. 163. Among others, cf. L. PERNOT, RhetoricinAntiquity, trans. W.E. Higgins, Washing- ton, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2005; ID., Epideictic Rhetoric:Questioning theStakesofAncientPraise (Ashley and Peter Larkin Series in Greek and Roman Culture), 478 K. TERZOPOULOS

A careful analysis of the homilies uncovers a rich, creative, and deliberate rhetorical invention (ideaior heuresis), as well as artistic compositional development (diaskeuē) replete with all the stylistic elements associated with the literary aesthetic of the Second Sophistic164 and its trademark rhythmic clausulae, so often dismissed by modern readers as annoying “rhetorical flourishes” – as F.M. Young has pointed out in her observations on patristic exegesis165. They are anything other than mere ornament or embellishment for their own sake, but are rather exegesis and proof in the guise of persuasion (peithō) – recall the quote from Gorgias as the head of this paper. As we shall see below, Anastasius’ calculated arrangement of rhetorical style as it was affected by the asianic pulse and flow166 of euphonious stichometry with its alliterations, assonance, tempo, cadence, rhyme, rhythm and repetition, parallelism, anaphora, hapaxlegomena and the all-essential skhēmata (figures) – tools for creative amplification (auxēsis) and expansion (peribolē)167 – are a core characteristic of Anasta- sius’ homiletic style. Furthermore, this Anastasius “the Versatile” (ὁ πολύτροπος) proves himself an especially experienced technician of two all-important advanced figures: (i) ekphrasis(descriptive speech) with clarity (saphēneia) and vividness (enargeia) and (ii) ēthopoeia (characterization, imaginary allocution) or the imitation of the character of a person supposed to be speaking, both of which we shall return to below.

Austin, TX, University of Texas Press, 2015; V. VALIAVITCHARSKA, RhetoricandRhythm inByzantium:TheSoundofPersuasion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013; G.A. KENNEDY, GreekRhetoricunderChristianEmperors, Princeton, NJ, Princeton Uni- versity Press, 1983; ID., A New History of Classical Rhetoric (Princeton Paperbacks), Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1994; ID., ClassicalRhetoricandItsChristian andSecularTraditionfromAncienttoModernTimes, Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina Press, 21999; WOOTEN (trans.), Hermogenes’OnTypesofStyle (n. 61), especially the two appendices on pp. 131-140. The main text of the so-called Hermogenes corpus can be found in H. RABE (ed.), Hermogenisopera, Leipzig, Teubner, 1913 (repr. 1969). 164. On the Second Sophistic one might consider the following: S. SWAIN, Hellenism andEmpire:Language,Classicism,andPowerintheGreekWorld AD50-250, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996; T. WHITMARSH, TheSecondSophistic (Greece and Rome: New Surveys in the Classics, 35), Oxford, Oxford University Press for the Classical Asso- ciation, 2005; T. WHITMARSH, BeyondtheSecondSophistic:AdventuresinGreekPostclas- sicism, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 2013. 165. Cf. F.M. YOUNG, PanegyricandtheBible, in StudiaPatristica 25 (1993) 194-208, especially pp. 194-195; EAD., BiblicalExegesisandtheFormationofChristianCulture, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997. But also consider C. SCHÄUBLIN, TheCon- tributionofRhetoricstoChristianHermeneutics, in C. KANNENGIESSER (ed.), Handbook ofPatristicExegesis(The Bible in Ancient Christianity, 1), Leiden, Brill, 2003, 149-163; R. WEBB, TheProgymnasmataasPractice, in Y. LEE TOO (ed.), EducationinGreekand RomanAntiquity, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2001, 289-316. 166. Cf. VALIAVITCHARSKA, RhetoricandRhythm(n. 163), especially pp. 25-33, as well as pp. 56-89. 167. G.L. KUSTAS, StudiesinByzantineRhetoric (Analekta Vlatadō n, 17), Thessaloniki, Patriarchikon Idryma Paterikō n Meletō n, 1973, pp. 127-158. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 479

Before addressing these specific elements of his homiletic style, though, but more especially, in light of K.-H. Uthemann’s recent monograph on Anastasius, his characterization of the Sinai father’s homilies in terms of “dramatischer Diatribe”168, some preliminary discussion cannot be avoided. At the outset it must be clarified that this writer has no desire to enter the vast and tangled discussion on the literary origins of the Christian homiletic genre and its relation to Hellenistic and Greco-Roman diatribe style; much ink has already been spilled by many much more qualified than myself. The modern questions as to whether diatribe is a literary genre or not, or whether the tactic rightfully belongs to the realm of philosophy or rhetoric have long been debated by specialists, since at least the end of the nineteenth century169. Nonetheless, once we set aside our

168. UTHEMANN, AnastasiosSinaites (n. 4), p. 333. See also K.-H. UTHEMANN, Forms ofCommunicationintheHomiliesofSeverianofGabala:AContributiontotheReception oftheDiatribeasaMethodofExposition, in CUNNINGHAM – ALLEN (eds.), Preacherand Audience (n. 36), 139-177; K.-H. UTHEMANN – H. GÖRGEMANNS, s.v. Diatribe, in Brill’s NewPauly (2006), http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e316870. 169. From at least the end of the nineteenth century, some basic bibliographical sources to be considered on the discussion will inevitably include the following (in alphabetical order): R.K. BULTMANN, DerStilderpaulinischenPredigtunddiekynisch-stoischeDiatribe, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910 (repr. 1984); W. CAPPELLE – H.I. MARROU, s.v. Diatribe, in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, Stuttgart, Hiersemann, 1957; D.R. DUDLEY – M.T. GRIFFIN, AHistoryofCynicism:FromDiogenestothe6thCentury A.D., 2nd ed., Bristol, Classical Press, 1998; H. USENER (ed.), Epicurea, Leipzig, Teubner, 1887, p. lxix; G.A. KENNEDY, NewTestamentInterpretationthroughRhetoricalCriticism (Studies in Religion), Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina Press, 1984, pp. 33, 155-156; G.L. KUSTAS, Diatribe in Ancient Rhetorical Theory, in W. WUELLNER (ed.), DiatribeinAncientRhetoricalTheory:ProtocoloftheTwenty-SecondColloquy,25April 1976(Protocol Series of the Colloquies of the Center, 22), Berkeley, CA, The Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenic and Modern Culture, 1976, 2-11; B. MACDOUGALL, GregoryofNazianzusandChristianFestivalRhetoric, PhD diss., Brown University, 2015, pp. 10, 91, 173; E. NORDEN, DieantikeKunstprosavomVI.Jahrhundertv.Chr.bisindie ZeitderRenaissance, vol. 6, Leipzig, Teubner, 1898, esp. p. 129; H. RAHN, Morphologie derantikenLiteratur:EineEinführung, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969, p. 156; W. SCHMID – O. STÄHLIN – W. CHRIST, GeschichtedergriechischenLiteratur, 2 vols., München, Beck, 1920, p. 55, n. 2; F. SAYRE, DiogenesofSinope:AStudyofGreek Cynicism, Baltimore, MD, J.H. Furst, 1938; F. SAYRE, TheGreekCynics, Baltimore, MD, J.H. Furst, 1948; E.G. SCHMIDT, Diatribai, in DerKleinePauly:LexikonderAntike, vol. 2, Stuttgart, Alfred Druckenmüller Verlag, 1964, 1577-1578; C.A. SMITH, TheDevelopment ofStyle(FifthCenturyBCEtoSecondCenturyCE)andtheConsequencesforUnderstanding theStyleoftheNewTestament, in JournalofGreco-RomanChristianityandJudaism 7 (2010) 9-31, esp. p. 26; S.K. STOWERS, TheDiatribeandPaul’sLettertotheRomans (SBL Dissertation Series, 57), Chico, CA, Scholars Press, 1981, pp. 7-78 for a rather thorough yet concise reassessment of the problem; E.N. O’NEIL, Teles(TheCynicTeacher), (Society of Biblical Literature, Texts and Translations, 11; Graeco-Roman Religion Series 3), Mis- soula (Montana): Scholars Press, 1977; B.P. WALLACH, A History of the Diatribe from Its Origin up to the First Century B.C. and a Study of the Influence of the Genre upon LucretiusIII(830-1094), PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1974; ID., EpimoneandDiatribe:DwellingonthePointinPs.-Hermogenes, in RheinischesMuseum 480 K. TERZOPOULOS modern idea of diatribe as an angry speech of violent criticism and concentrate on the examples from antiquity it seems to me more properly described as the animated lecture of the ancient and antique academy. Be that as it may – and so as not to gloss over the term – a brief look at the definition for diatribe in the late antique, third-century Hermogenes, possibly the most influential rhetorician for the purposes of our present study170, and the tenth-century comparison definition from Gregorius Pro- dromus should suffice to make a concise point. The definition in the OnForcefulSpeaking(Περὶμεθόδουδεινότητος)of the Ps.-Hermogenes corpus connects diatribē with epimonē(dwelling or elaborating on a point), plēthos (fullness) and epenthumēsis (reflection):

There are two kinds of abundance (perittotēs), in word choice and in thought, and each of these, that in word choice and that in thought, is double also; abundance in words comes about from dwelling (diatribē) on something and by fullness (plēthos), in thought by inserting extra arguments (epenthymēseis) and by mixing in general statements (katholikoi logoi) with particulars. Diatribē is an extension of a short ethical thought in order for the character of the speaker to remain fixed in the mind of the listener171.

The eleventh- to twelfth-century commentary sharing the same title echoes the identical point of the speaker, while emphasizing the effect of leaving the message in the soul of his audience:

Diatribē is an extension of a short ethical thought, in order for the character of the speaker to remain fixed in the mind of the listener; that is to say, that these things are said from the disposition of the heart, and that they might be implanted in the soul of each of the listeners and the character of the speaker might be confirmed172.

There is much here congruous with Anastasius’ homiletic style, of course – I do not deny he uses diatribe – especially in considering the fürPhilologie NF 123 (1980) 272-322; P. WENDLAND, Philounddiekynisch-stoischeDia- tribe, Berlin, 1895. 170. KENNEDY, ClassicalRhetoric (n. 163), p. 121. 171. PS.-HERMOGENES, On Forceful Speaking, in KENNEDY – RABE, Invention and Method (n. 61), pp. 210-211: ἡ περιττότης ἐστὶ διπλῆ, καὶ κατὰ λέξιν καὶ κατὰ γνώμην· ἑκατέρα δὲ διπλῆ, καὶ ἡ κατὰ λέξιν καὶ ἡ κατὰ γνώμην, καὶ ἡ μὲν κατὰ λέξιν γίνεται διατριβῇ καὶ πλήθει, ἡ δὲ κατὰ γνώμην κατὰ ἐπενθυμήσεις καὶ λόγων καθολικῶν τοῖς ἰδίοις συμπλοκήν. διατριβή ἐστι βραχέος διανοήματος ἠθικοῦ ἔκτασις, ἵνα ἐμμείνῃ τὸ ἦθος τοῦ λέγοντος ἐν τῇ γνώμῃ τοῦ ἀκούοντος. 172. GREGORIUS PARDUS (11th-12th c.) – also known as Gregorius Prodromus, Gregorius Corinthius or Gregorius Smyrnaeus –, CommentariuminHermogenislibrumπερὶμεθόδου δεινότητος, ed. C. WALZ, RhetoresGraeci, vol. 7.2, Stuttgart – Tübingen, 1834, pp. 1150,28– 1151,2: λζʹ. Διατριβή ἐστι βραχέος διανοήματος ἠθικοῦ ἔκτασις, ἵν᾽ ἐμμείνῃ τὸ ἦθος τοῦ λέγοντος ἐν τῇ γνώμῃ τοῦ ἀκούοντος· τουτέστιν, ἵνα δόξωσιν οἱ ἀκούοντες, ὅτι ἐξ ἐνδιαθέτου καρδίας ταῦτα ἀπαγγέλλει, καὶ ἐν ψυχῇ τούτων ἐμπαγῇ καὶ βέβαιον γένηται τὸ ἦθος τοῦ λέγοντος. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 481 phrase in the middle Byzantine Gregorius Prodromus’ commentary about the style having the objective of consigning the things said into the hearts and soul of the audience – a highly desired goal of any homilist. Yet, it seems to me that there is also something else occurring in Ana- stasius’ homilies, something beyond diatribe. Inasmuch as literary style came to be regarded in terms of modality of expression (forms) by the time the Hermogenic corpus had acquired curricular status173, as required by the idea of propriety or appropriateness (to prepon)174 rather than fixed genres and categories of expression, it seems misleading to apply only one of numerous modes found in Anastasius’ homiletic corpus as the defining tactic for his overall pattern of discourse. Versatility (polutropia)175 or, even more precisely, variety adjusted to the particular situation and audience was, rather, the desired skill of accommodation to circumstance. In-depth and directed studies of diatribe elements in the Bible176, especially the Pauline corpus177, but even in the early patristic corpus, point to the fact that the tactic had been thoroughly integrated by the end of the fourth century in the most renowned of patristic fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzus178 and

173. On the progymnasmata and education see D.L. CLARK, RhetoricinGreco-Roman Education, New York, Columbia University Press, 1957; R. CRIBIORE, Gymnasticsofthe Mind:GreekEducationinHellenisticandRomanEgypt, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2001; KENNEDY, Progymnasmata (n. 28); PERNOT, RhetoricinAntiquity (n. 163), and ID., EpideicticRhetoric (n. 163), p. 10; J.-L. VIX, L’enseignementdelarhétoriqueau IIesiècleap.J.-C.àtraverslesdiscours30-34d’AeliusAristideἐνλόγοιςκαὶμαθήμασινκαὶ ἐπαίνοιςτραφείς (Recherches sur les Rhétoriques Religieuses, 13), Turnhout, Brepols, 2010. 174. KUSTAS, StudiesinByzantineRhetoric (n. 167), pp. 56, 97 n. 3, 144-145, 153, 163-165; D.A. RUSSELL – N.G. WILSON, MenanderRhetor:ACommentary, Oxford, Claren- don, 1981, treatise II, passim. 175. LIDDELL – SCOTT – JONES, Lexicon (n. 88), s.v. πολυτροπία, p. 1444. 176. KENNEDY, NewTestamentInterpretation(n. 169); G.A. KENNEDY – D.F. WATSON (eds.), PersuasiveArtistry:StudiesinNewTestamentRhetoricinHonorofGeorgeA.Ken- nedy (JSNT.SS, 50), Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1991; J.D.N. VAN DER WESTHUIZEN, Stylistic TechniquesandTheirFunctionsinJames2:14-26, in Neotestamentica 25 (1991) 89-107; M. WARNER, TheBibleasRhetoric:StudiesinBiblicalPersuasionandCredibility (War- wick Studies in Philosophy and Literature), London, Routledge, 1990; D.F. WATSON, 1 Corinthians10:23–11:1intheLightofGreco-RomanRhetoric:TheRoleofRhetorical Questions, in JournalofBiblicalLiterature 108 (1989) 301-318. 177. Again, I point to BULTMANN, DerStilderpaulinischenPredigt (n. 169); F.J. LONG, AncientRhetoricandPaul’sApology:TheCompositionalUnityof2Corinthians(Society for New Testament Studies, 131), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 97, 100; S.E. PORTER – B.R. DYER, PaulandAncientRhetoric:TheoryandPracticeinthe HellenisticContext, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2016; STOWERS, TheDiatribe andPaul’sLetter(n. 169), chapters 2-4. 178. Cf. G.H. ETTLINGER, TheOrationsofGregoryNazianzus:AStudyinRhetoricand Personality, in D.G. HUNTER (ed.), PreachinginthePatristicAge:StudiesinHonorof WalterJ.Burghardt,S.J, New York, Paulist Press, 1989, 101-118; M. GUIGNET, Saint GrégoiredeNazianzeetlarhétorique, Paris, Alphonse Picard et Fils, 1911, pp. 43-70; MACDOUGALL, GregoryofNazianzus (n. 169); R.R. RUETHER, GregoryofNazianzus,Rhetor andPhilosopher, Oxford, Clarendon, 1969, pp. 55-128. 482 K. TERZOPOULOS

John Chrysostom179, who made abundant use of elements of diatribe style, like the imaginary interlocutor, objections and false conclusions, and the dialogical exchange. Even if we take a step back from Byzantium to the first Christian centuries when the New Testament canon was still being authored, recent scholarship has identified Greek rhetorical technique via the use of khreiai(or anecdote)180 specifically, but also the wider rhetorical tekhnēof the period by the authors of the Gospels181. The khreiai are important because of a process known as ἐξεργασία or ἐργασία – elaboration or expansion182 and the Latin expolitio183. With their impressive and systematic research on the khreiai, R.F. Hock and E.N. O’Neil trace the history of the form of their elaboration from Aelius Theon of Alexandria in the mid to late first century AD to Hermogenes in the late second century AD and a system of augmentation via eight exercises: “1) praise (ἔπαινος), 2) (paraphrase of) the chreia (ἡ χρεία), 3) [then (εἶτα) the] rationale (αἰτία), 4) opposite (κατὰ τὸ ἐναντίον), 5) analogy (ἐκ τοῦ παραβολῆς), 6) example (ἐκ παραδείγματος), 7) judgment (ἐκ κρίσεως), and 8) exhortation (παράκλησις)”184. So as not to give the impression that Anastasius’ rhetorical training from his youth is the alpha and omega of his homiletic art, pointing to a relatively recent piece of insightful research by H.R. Johnsén, ReadingJohnClimacus185, there is

179. Cf. T.E. AMERINGER, TheStylisticInfluenceoftheSecondSophisticonthePane- gyricalSermonsofSt.JohnChrysostom:AStudyinGreekRhetoric, PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 1921; H.M. HUBBELL, ChrysostomandRhetoric, in ClassicalPhi- lology 19 (1924) 261-276; E.A. DE MENDIETA, L’amplificationd’unthèmesocratiqueet stoïciendansl’avant-derniertraitédeJeanChrysostome, in Byzantion 36 (1966) 353-381; M. SIMONETTI, SullastrutturadeiPanegyricidiS.GiovanniCrisostomo, in Rendicontidei InstitutoLambardodiScienzeeLettere 86 (1953) 159-180; A.J.Q. PUERTAS, TheRhetorical MechanismsofJohnChrysostom’sOn Priesthood, in CAMERON – GAUL (eds.), Dialogues andDebates(n. 109), 32-42. 180. The khreia is defined by AELIUS THEON, Exercises 3, as “a brief saying or action making a point, attributed to some specified person or something corresponding to a person, and maxim and reminiscence are connected with it. Every brief maxim attributed to a person creates a chreia” (trans. KENNEDY, Progymnasmata [n. 28], p. 15). For khreiai in early Christian literature cf. B.L. MACK – V.K. ROBBINS, PatternsofPersuasionintheGospels, Eugene, OR, Wipf & Stock, 1989; K. MCVEY, TheChreiaintheDesert:Rhetoricandthe BibleintheApophthegmata Patrum, in A.J. MALHERBE etal. (eds.), TheEarlyChurchin ItsContext:EssaysinHonorofEverettFerguson (Novum Testamentum Supplements, 90), Leiden, Brill, 1998. 181. For instance: KENNEDY – WATSON, PersuasiveArtistry(n. 176); WARNER, TheBible asRhetoric(n. 176). 182. Cf. KENNEDY, Progymnasmata (n. 28), pp. 21, 77. 183. R.E. VOLKMANN, DieRhetorikderGriechenundRömerinsystematischerÜbersicht, 2nd ed., Leipzig 1885 (repr. Hildesheim, Olms, 1963), pp. 257-260. 184. R.F. HOCK – E.N. O’NEIL (eds.), TheChreiaandAncientRhetoric:Classroom Exercises, vol. 2 (Writings from the Greco-Roman World, 2), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2002, pp. 83-84. 185. H.R. JOHNSÉN, ReadingJohnClimacus:RhetoricalArgumentation,LiteraryCon- ventionandtheTraditionofMonasticFormation, Lund, Lund University, 2007. While I may not concur with all his final conclusions, I do believe that an important aspect of the APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 483 plenty of evidence for the use of this rhetorical pattern of elaboration even in John Climacus’ Scalaparadisi; hence, there is no reason to assume that Anastasius would have lost touch with the literary traditions of his time during his years at the God-trodden Mountain, given the fact that his own abbot – to whom he refers as his “new Second Moses” – was obviously trained in the same tradition186. I already commented above with regards to the Homiliadesacrasynaxi and how it profoundly reflects on a number of Steps from the Scala. For all these reasons briefly alluded to above, it seems to me that the overall tactic utilized by Anastasius in his homiletic corpus is better served characterized by the wider literary genre of epideicticoratory187 and not limited to a single stylistic element. The anywhere from twelve to fourteen headings from the graded preliminary exercises or Progymnasmata188 that would have been current at Anastasius’ time189 could serve as a format from which to analyze his rhetorical appropriations: the muthos(fable), diēgēma (narrative), the khreia(anecdote or recollection), gnōmē(maxim), the anaskeuēand kataskeuē(refutation and confirmation), toposkoinos (common-place), the enkōmion(praise), sunkrisis (comparison), but especially ēthopoeia or prosōpopoeia (characterization or personification), and ekphrasis(descriptive, vivid, enargēs, speech). I shall, however, concentrate on the last two figures, since they merit special attention in relation to Anastasius’ homiletic corpus. rhetorical style of John Climacus’ work is being revealed in a serious manner which is long overdue. Consider also the following: J. DUFFY, EmbellishingtheSteps:ElementsofPres- entationandStylein‘TheHeavenlyLadder’ofJohnClimacus, in DumbartonOaksPapers 53 (1999) 1-17; H.R. JOHNSÉN, RhetoricandAsceticAscentinTheLadderofJohnClimacus, in StudiaPatristica 39 (2006) 393-398; ID., TrainingforSolitude:JohnClimacusandthe ArtofMakingaLadder, in StudiaPatristica 48 (2010) 159-164. 186. Anastasius mentions the death of John Climacus as a recent event in Narrationes I 16 in the following manner: Μέλλοντος πρὸς κύριον πορεύεσθαι τοῦ νέου ἡμῶν δευ- τέρου Μωϋσέως, τοῦ ὁσιωτάτου ἀββᾶ Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἡγουμένου, κατὰ τὸν περσινὸν χρόνον. Cf. Narrationes I 16, ll. 1-3, ed. BINGGELI (n. 18), trans. CANERetal., History (n. 35), p. 183. Compare also PG 88, 633,55–636,1. 187. E. JEFFREYS (ed.), Rhetoric in Byzantium: Papers from the Thirty-Fifth Spring SymposiumofByzantineStudies,ExeterCollege,UniversityofOxford,March2001 (Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Publications, 11), Aldershot – Burlington, VT, Ashgate, 2003; KENNEDY, GreekRhetoric(n. 163); ID., ANewHistoryofClassicalRhetoric (n. 163); ID., ClassicalRhetoric (n. 163); G.L. KUSTAS, TheFunctionandEvolutionof ByzantineRhetoric, in N. GREGORY (ed.), GreekLiteratureintheByzantinePeriod, New York – Abington – Oxon, Routledge, 2001, 55-74; ID., RhetoricandtheHolySpirit, in A.R. LITTLEWOOD (ed.), OriginalityinByzantineLiterature,ArtandMusic:ACollection of Essays, Oxford, Oxbow Books, 1995, 29-37; RUSSELL – WILSON, Menander Rhetor (n. 174), pp. xi-xxxiv; PERNOT, RhetoricinAntiquity(n. 163); ID., EpideicticRhetoric (n. 163). 188. For an overview of the progymnasmata cf. KENNEDY, GreekRhetoric(n. 163), pp. 54-60. 189. That is, especially, Aelius Theon, Hermogenes, Aphthonius the Sophist, and Nico- laus, the first three conveniently introduced and translated in KENNEDY, Progymnasmata (n. 28). On education and the progymnasmata see bibliography in n. 173. 484 K. TERZOPOULOS

Ekphrasis(description) with enargeia (vividness) has been termed the “tour-de-force of description”190, and is closely related to the skhēmata (figures) of diēgēma (narrative) and ēthopoeiaor prosōpopoeia (characterization or personification), sometimes listed together under the heading of auxēsis (amplification). According to the Ps.-Hermogenes corpus:

Ἔκφρασίς ἐστι λόγος περιηγηματικός, ὥς φασιν, ἐναργὴς καὶ ὑπ᾽ ὄψιν ἄγων τὸ δηλούμενον. Γίνονται δὲ ἐκφράσεις προσώπων τε καὶ πραγμά- των καὶ καιρῶν καὶ τόπων καὶ χρόνων καὶ πολλῶν ἑτέρων191. Ecphrasis (ekphrasis) is descriptive speech, as they say, vivid (enargês) and bringing what is being shown before the eyes. There are ecphrases of persons and actions and times and places and seasons and many other things192.

It is important to notice that the formal description ofekphrasis includes the description of persons, places, periods of time, actions and feasts193. Hence, the modern misunderstanding of ekphrasisas referring exclusively to the description of works of art must be corrected194. The operative element of the definition that strikes home in our present context is the role of ekphrasis as bringingthetopicdiscussedtolife,vividlybeforethe eyesofthelisteners. The other important advanced rhetorical figure among those mastered by Anastasius is ēthopoeia, characterization or personification. The main elements of Hermogenes’ definition goes as follows:

Ἠθοποιία ἐστὶ μίμησις ἤθους ὑποκειμένου προσώπου […] προσωποποιία δέ, ὅταν πράγματι περιτιθῶμεν […]. ἡ δὲ διαφορὰ δήλη· ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ ὄντος προσώπου λόγους πλάττομεν, ἐνταῦθα δὲ οὐκ ὂν πρόσωπον πλάττομεν. εἰδω- λοποιίαν δέ φασιν ἐκεῖνο, ὅταν τοῖς τεθνεῶσι λόγους περιάπτωμεν […]195.

190. M. JEFFREYS, ‘Rhetorical’Texts, in E. JEFFREYS (ed.), RhetoricinByzantium (n. 187), 87-100, p. 95. Scholarship in the past two decades has begun to concentrate on this rhetorical figure with a new spirit; cf. J.H. BARKHUIZEN, RomanosMelodos,On the Massacre of the Innocents:APerspectiveonEkphrasisasaMethodofPatristicExegesis, in Acta Classica 50 (2007) 29-50; D.P. FOWLER, NarrateandDescribe:TheProblemofEkphrasis, in TheJournalofRomanStudies 81 (1991) 25-35; S. GOLDHILL, WhatIsEkphrasisFor?, in ClassicalPhilology 102 (2007) 1-19; I. LUNDE, RhetoricalEnargeiaandLinguisticPrag- matics:OnSpeech-reportingStrategiesinEastSlavicMedievalHagiographyandHomiletics, in JournalofHistoricalPragmatics 5 (2004) 49-80; S. PAPAIOANNOU, ByzantineEnargeia andTheoriesofRepresentation, in Byzantinoslavica69 (2011) 48-60; A.D. WALKER, Enar- geiaandtheSpectatorinGreekHistoriography, in TransactionsoftheAmericanPhilo- logicalAssociation123 (1993) 353-377; R. WEBB, EkphrasisAncientandModern:The InventionofaGenre, in WordandImage 15 (2000) 7-18; ID., Ekphrasis,Imaginationand PersuasioninAncientRhetoricalTheoryandPractice, Farnham – Burlington, VT, Ashgate, 2009. 191. RABE (ed.), Hermogenisopera (n. 163), p. 22,6-10. 192. KENNEDY, Progymnasmata (n. 28), p. 86. 193. Ibid., pp. 45, 86, 117, 166 and 218. 194. Especially WEBB, EkphrasisAncientandModern (n. 190), p. 8. 195. RABE (ed.), Hermogenisopera (n. 163), p. 20,7-16. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 485

Ēthopoeia is an imitation of the character of a person supposed to be speaking […]. It is personification (prosōpopoeia) when we personify a thing […]. The difference is clear: in ēthopoeia we imagine words for a real person, in prosōpopoeia we imagine a non-existing person. They say it is image-making (eidōlopoeia) when we attribute words to the dead […]196.

In his OntheSublime, Longinus calls it phantasia: Weight, grandeur, and urgency in writing are very largely produced, dear young friend, by the use of “visualizations” (phantasiai). That at least is what I call them; others call them “image productions”. For the term phantasia is applied in general to an idea which enters the mind from any source and engenders speech, but the word has now come to be used predominantly of passages where, inspired by strong emotion, you seem to see what you describe and bring it vividly before the eyes of your audience. That phantasia means one thing in oratory and another in poetry you will yourself detect, and also that the object of the poetical form of it is to enthral, and that of the prose form to present things vividly, though both indeed aim at the emotional and the excited197.

It may, indeed, be that the interlocution embedded in Anastasius’ homilies draws from the diatribe genre historically (if in fact it is a literary genre); however, it seems to this writer that epideictic more precisely describes the overall style of narration used in his homilies, especially when considering his extensive and varied use of the range from the sim- pler to the most advanced rhetorical figures. Indeed, even the highly invec- tive HomiliainpassionemIesuChristi utilizes ekphrasis and ēthopoeia throughout. One ēthopoeia exists in that homily of Jesus addressing the Jews as he shows his wounds, reminiscent of the improperia. A second ēthopoeiais a personification of Hades asking “Why were the tombs not opened when Saul slaughtered the 305 priests (1 Sam 22)? Why did signs not occur when Titus Vespasianus killed ten myriads of Jews (AD 70)? Why did an earthquake not occur when the three youths were thrown into the furnace? How is it that the sun was not darkened when Daniel entered the den of lions? How is it that the dividing veil was not torn when the holy of holies and the temple was set aglow (2 Kgs 24)? But when you crucified, Oh foul Jew, a simple man, not a prophet, not a lawless Jesus Christ, but true God and Son of God”198. There is also another ēthopoeia

196. KENNEDY, Progymnasmata (n. 28), p. 84. 197. LONGINUS, OntheSublime 15, 1-2, trans. W.H. FYFE (Loeb Classical Library, 199), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1995, pp. 214-217. 198. Ἐρωτηθῇ καὶ ὁ Ἅͺδης, Διατί οὐκ ἠνοίχθησαν τὰ μνήματα, ὅτε Σαοὺλ τοὺς τριακοσίους πέντε ἱερεῖς ἔσφαξεν; διατί σημεῖα οὐ γέγοναν ὅτε Τίτος καὶ ὁ Βεσπεσι- ανὸς τὰς ἑκατὸν δέκα μυριάδας τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ἐφόνευσαν; διατί σεισμὸς οὐκ ἐγένετο, ἡνίκα οἱ τρεῖς παῖδες ἐν τῇ καμίνῳ ἐβλήθησαν; πῶς οὐκ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος ὅτε Δανιὴλ ἐν τῷ λάκκῳ τῶν λεόντων κατήρχετο; Πῶς οὐκ ἐσχίσθη τὸ καταπέτασμα, ὅτε ναὸς καὶ τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων ὑπὸ Ναβουζαρδὰν ἐμπυρίζετο, ὅτε οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ψιλόν, ὦ μιαρὲ 486 K. TERZOPOULOS of Christ speaking to the Jews, collectively personified as “the synagogue”, enumerating how they received God’s forgiveness throughout history despite their faithlessness, but due to what they did to him on Golgotha they shall be erased: “Do you hear your deeds, O adulteress synagogue?, which the little bit of vinegar and gall caused, and for which God dismissed them to the end? He deserted them, dispersed them, and hated her nomic worship; he stopped his temple completely, destroyed the feasts, the sacrifices, the Pascha; he erased their kings, prophets, righteous, shepherds, the arc, the tent, and, simply, left nothing of the good things for them”199. While classic forms of exegesis are to be found throughout the Anasta- sian homilies, I would like to submit that there is an argument to be made that Anastasius consciously uses the entire spectrum of epideictic figures, but especially ekphrasis and ēthopoeia, as a mode of spiritual, anagogic exegesis, vividly, graphically bringing to life whatever event he describes, before the eyes of the hearer’s mind as if making them present – more precisely, personal experiences. Anastasius’ chosen mode of auxēsis or literary amplification was already an all-important element of the venerable tradition of rhētorikē tekhnē,and it is clearly in this tradition that he was well-trained. No matter the direction one gravitates in formulating arguments of literary genre, the domain of the grammatikos and sophistēsin the late antique four- to five-, or even eight-year higher educational system must be accounted for seriously200. Anastasius’ kerygmatic force makes masterful use of the Hellenistic rhetorical tools explained in the handbooks of literary style, that were the domain of the grammatikos. Anastasius’ surviving homiletic texts witness to the proficiency he attained. The fact that Anastasius was nurtured in the tall shadows of other Amathusian Cypriots like John the Merciful and Leontius of Neapolis should also not be overlooked. He was being tutored in the Greco-Roman literary late antique environment that reached back to its Hellenistic and ancient Greek roots. There is yet another way to look at the state of affairs, though, if we should consider the Aristotelian schema for epideictic speech as it was incorporated from the philosophical tradition and addressed in treatises on method and invention201. Ps.-Hermogenes’ formsofstyle known as Ideai

Ἰουδαῖε, ἐσταύρωσας, οὐ προφήτην, οὐ παράνομον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ Θεὸν ἀλη- θινὸν καὶ υἱὸν Θεοῦ (Paris.gr.1504, fol. 154r, col. a, ll. 1-24). 199. Ἀκούεις τοὺς καμάτους σου, ὦ μοιχαλὶς συναγωγή; οὓς τὸ μικρὸν ὄξος καὶ ἡ χολή σοι προσεξένησεν, καὶ ἀπέρριψεν αὐτὸν ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τέλος· ἐρήμωσεν, διεσκόρ- πισεν, ἐμίσησεν τὴν νομικὴν λατρείαν αὐτοῦ· κατέπαυσε τὸν ναὸν αὐτοῦ εἰς πλήρις· ἀπώλεσεν τὰς ἑορτάς, τὰς θυσίας, τὸ πάσχα· τοὺς βασιλεῖς αὐτῶν ἐξήλειψεν, τοὺς ἱερεῖς, τοὺς προφήτας, τοὺς δικαίους, τοὺς ποιμένας, τὴν κιβωτόν, τὴν σκηνήν· καὶ ἁπλῶς, οὐδὲν τῶν ἀγαθῶν τῶν προτέρων αὐτοῖς κατέλιπεν (Paris.gr.1504, fol. 163v, col. a, l. 20– col. b, l. 14). 200. MARROU, AHistoryofEducation (n. 161), p. 267. 201. KENNEDY – RABE, InventionandMethod (n. 61); KUSTAS, StudiesinByzantineRhet- oric (n. 167), pp. 13-14 for an outline of the seven forms of style discussed in Hermogenes; APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 487 are clarity (saphēneia), loftiness and grandeur (axiomalogoukaimege- thos), elegance and beauty (epimeleiakaikallos), conciseness (gorgotēs), ethos (ēthos), sincerety (alētheia), and force (deinotēs). Each come with their own unique subdivisions – like loftiness including dignity (semnotēs) or brilliance (lamprotēs), or ethos including simplicity (apheleia) or sweetness (glukutēs). Additionally, each form is approached via eight cat- egories202. It is the “mixture”, or mixis, and harmony of these elements of style that bring about effective speech203, what Longinus referred to as the sublime (hupsos)204. In his preface, Longinus establishes that genius is not the ability to persuade, but to transport an audience “out of themselves”, into another reality that amazes, convinces and pleases (1, 162-165). A comparison of components in Greco-Roman rhetorical theories of style by P.W. Martens discusses various philosophical constructs from the likes of Demetrius, Longinus, Ps.-Aristides, Hermogenes and Adrian205. For our purposes here, however, we can take a further step back to the basics of rhetorical ‘display’ (epideixis) – hence, epideictic speech – by referring directly to Aristotle’s seminal Arsrhetorica. The chapter “On Narration and Proof” (3.13) will suffice to point to the manner in which the Aristotelian tradition provided the foundation for the Byzantine tradition: “So the necessarysections are presentation and proof. These ones, then, are the proper ones, but the maximum number are introduction, presentation, proof, and epilogue”206. Subsequently, the two indispensable elements of (i) presentation or statement (diēgēsis) and (ii) proof (pistis) in Aristotle’s scheme will serve as the foundation for what Hellenistic rhetorical theory referred to as Style, where there is a tripartite classification under the skhēma of thought (dianoia), the skhēma of diction (lexeōs)207 and the skhēma of

ID., TheFunctionandEvolution (n. 187); WOOTEN (trans.), Hermogenes’OnTypesofStyle (n. 61). 202. Sentence (ennoia), mode or method (methodos), diction (lexis), figures (schēmata), cola (kōla), composition (sunthēkē), cadence (anapausis), and rhythm (ruthmos) in KUSTAS, StudiesinByzantineRhetoric (n. 167), pp. 13-14. 203. Ibid., pp. 15-16. 204. LONGINUS, On the Sublime, trans. FYFE (n. 197), pp. 143-307; S. HALLIWELL, BetweenEcstasyandTruth:InterpretationsofGreekPoeticsfromHomertoLonginus, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 327-367; M. HEATH, Longinus,OnSublimity 35.1, in TheClassicalQuarterly 50 (2000) 320-323; D.C. INNES, LonginusandCaecilius: ModelsoftheSublime, in Mnemosyne 55 (2002) 259-284; PERNOT, RhetoricinAntiquity (n. 163), pp. 208-209. 205. P.W. MARTENS, Adrian’sIntroduction to the Divine ScripturesandGreco-Roman RhetoricalTheoryonStyle, in TheJournalofReligion 93 (2013) 197-217: see the convenient table of comparisons on pp. 204-205; ID., Adrian’sIntroduction to the Divine Scriptures: AnAntiocheneHandbookforScripturalInterpretation (Oxford Early Christian Texts), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017. 206. Aristotle, TheArtofRhetoric, trans. LAWSON-TANCRED (n. 162), 1414B, p. 329. 207. G. CALBOLI, TheSchemataλέξεως:AGrammaticalandRhetoricalTool, in Rhe- torica:AJournaloftheHistoryofRhetoric 22 (2004) 241-256. 488 K. TERZOPOULOS word arrangement (sunthesis). Thought is just that, the presented thought or opinion or event; diction is the word choice, the trope, the metaphor or simile; and arrangement is the rhythm, word order, length of clauses, etc. In the context of the Christian homily think of replacing thought (dianoia) with a scriptural passage or parable or psalm or saying of a father, or any other narrative, or even, as in the case to be examined below, of a festal commemoration, such as Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to the eleven disciples; thus, we observe and appreciate the late antique Christian phenomenon of the appropriation of the Hellenistic rhetorical theory for the epideictic, panegyric speech. Put another way, the hermeneutics of Christian rhetoric can be compared to dialectic in Aristotelian rhetoric; the chief concern, however, for epideictic speech is emotion, passion. For the Christian homily the goal is to convert hearts and change lives – pathos andēthos. Similar rhetorical characteristics have also been observed in other homilists near to Anastasius chronologically. In her survey of the sixth-century Greek homily, P. Allen comments on Leontius of Constantinople, Timothy of Jerusalem/Antioch and Gregory of Antioch saying, “they are fond of passages of stichometry, repetition, anaphora and abundant use of dialogue, particularly between biblical characters”208. With regards to form, she observed in all three homilists what she termed “blocks of homiletic text” where the Scriptural text was “stated, elaborated, repeated and elaborated, time after time”209. J. Barkhuizen’s remarks on the fifth-century Proclus of Constantinople’s homilies include many of the same observations: a rhetorical and ethical nature, plays on words, asianic style, parallelism; imaginary dialogues, citing especially Homiliaconsolatoria(Hom. 35); and the employment of different types of exegesis, i.e. literal, allegorical and typological210. M. Cunningham discussed the rhetorical function, as well as the theo- logical or exegetical purpose of dialogue in Byzantine homilies with broad strokes and emphasized the consistent use of dramatic dialogue from the fourth century onwards, whose purpose, she states, was to persuade the congregation that they were actually participating in the events as “in their midst”211 – what the Greek rhetorical tradition would term the enargeia of ekphrasis. Like P. Allen, she also observed a pattern of quoted scripture and invented speech.

208. P. ALLEN, TheSixth-CenturyHomily:AReassessment, in CUNNINGHAM – ALLEN (eds.), PreacherandAudience (n. 36), 102-225, p. 213. 209. Ibid. 210. J.H. BARKHUIZEN, Aspects of Style and Imagery in the Homilies of Proclus of Constantinople, in ActaPatristicaetByzantina 9 (1998) 1-22; ID., ProclusofConstantinople: APopularPreacherinFifth-centuryConstantinople, in CUNNINGHAM – ALLEN (eds.), Preacher andAudience (n. 36), 179-200, especially pp. 185, 192-193. 211. M. CUNNINGHAM, DramaticDeviceorDidacticTool?TheFunctionofDialogue inByzantinePreaching, in JEFFREYS (ed.), RhetoricinByzantium(n. 187), 101-113, p. 107. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 489

My own survey of Greek patristic homilies from the fourth century has identified no less than fourteen authors using substantial ēthopoeia212. Hence, ‘dramatic dialogue’ was clearly a well-established rhetorical and exegetical tool for the Byzantine homilist by the time Anastasius began penning his sermons, but clearly it was one of numerous rhetorical tactics he employed. The conscious alternation of the myriad of rhetorical figures known as skhēmata by the Byzantine homilists was used in order to bring to life the Scriptural events, transporting their audiences into the events and in that way helping them experience the levels of truth hidden within. The alternation of figures drives home the presentation and proof discussed above of whichever ‘argument’ the writer was addressing, be it exegetical, ethical, spiritual or doctrinal. From this we can ascertain that they were not mere embellishments or flourishes for their own sake, as is all too often assumed213. The so-called amplifications of auxēsisor emmonē– in which diatribe also partakes – and the parallel comparisons (sunkriseis) take on the role of kerygmatic persuasion, hence the use of the so-called Gorgeanic figures214. Ultimately, the goal of the Christian kerygma is anagogic, an elevation, the transportation of the hearer into the pertinent event. This, of course, plays directly into the hands of especially the advanced skhēmata, such as ekphrasis and ēthopoeiaalready discussed above, and which we shall observe in the excerpt from the Anastasian homily below. Before considering specific examples there is one more important point to address: that of Scriptural quotations, not only in the Anastasian homilies, but in the patristic homiletic tradition on the whole. The web of intertextuality in the patristic corpus can be complicated. When considering patristic Scriptural quotations, but especially the homiletic panegyric corpus, one is immediately struck by the variety of readings encountered. This phenomenon is normally addressed in several practical ways. One is

212. The following are provided as best representatives: BASIL OF CAESAREA, Homilia indivites; GREGORY OF NYSSA, Dialogusdeanimaetresurrectione; PROCLUS OF CONSTAN- TINOPLE, Hom.consolatoria (xxxv); Deincarnatione (ii); Ins.theophania (vii); Innatalem diemdomini (iv); Laudatios.deigenitricisMariae (vi); Intheophania (xxviii); Incruci- fixionem (xxix); Ins.apost.Thomam (xxxiii); Encomiuminomnessanctos (xxxiv); Lau- datios.Nicolai [Sp.]; Inlaud.S.Andreamap. (xix); THEOGNIUS PRESBYTER OF JERUSALEM, Hom.inRamospalamarum; CONSTANTINUS DEACON AND CHARTOPHYLAX OF CONSTANTINOPLE, Laudioomniummartyrum; TIMOTHEUS PRESBYTER OF JERUSALEM OR ANTIOCH, Oratioin Symeonem and Sermoincrucem; GREGORIUS THE GRAMMATICIAN, Laudatioiins.Barnabae; SOPHRONIUS OF JERUSALEM, Hom.annuntiationem, and Homiliaintheophaniam, with extended dialogues in both; THEODORUS SYNCELLUS, InvuentioetdepositionuestisinBlachernis and Novaepartumbibliothecae. 213. Although YOUNG, PanegyricandtheBible (n. 165), pp. 196-198, is specifically discussing the use of Scripture in patristic panegyrics, I find it parallel to the point at hand in that it revealed, albeit from another perspective, how the use of figures was not simple ornamentation. 214. For a convenient overview consider KENNEDY, ClassicalRhetoric (n. 163), pp. 29-52 on Sophistic rhetoric, and pp. 34-38 on Gorgias in particular. 490 K. TERZOPOULOS to consider that the author might have been speaking extemporaneously, hence, paraphrasing the Scriptural passage or simply not remembering it correctly. Another is to compare the passage with the critical editions available to see if a specific or possibly lost manuscript recension is witnessed to in the passage — something I have encountered in Anastasius. What is often overlooked, however, is the fact that the writer could be adapting the passage to fit the context of a rhetorical figure of either thought or diction. I would like to submit that word arrangement, or sunthesis, must be carefully examined in this context. Menander Rhetor’s instructions on consolatory speech are helpful:

Then, having amplified the lamentation as far as possible, the speaker should approach the second part of his speech, which is the consolatory part. This will begin in some such fashion as the following: “Let me say to those of you who are parents that I am surprised it has not occurred to you to think of the words of that excellent poet Euripides, worthy indeed to be thought a fosterling of the Muses: It is the new-born child we ought to mourn, for all The woes he’s coming to; the dead, from trouble Relieved, we should with joy and praises hence Escort from home. You should not, however, quote the whole passage, since it is generally familiar and well known, but adapt it. Similarly, with Herodotus’ story of Cleobis and Biton215.

The instruction to adaptandnotquotethepassage is significant. As shall become clear in the annotated excerpt below, when contemplating why a patristic author’s Scriptural references do not coincide with known recensions, the rhetorical sunthesismust be seriously accounted for within the context of the epideictic patristic homily. The instruction to adapt and not quote a passage is also found in the Progymnasmata, such as Aelius Theon’s section of Paraphrasis:

Paraphrase (paraphrasis) consists of changing the form of expression while keeping the thoughts; it is also called metaphrase [translation]. There are four main kinds: variation in syntax, by addition, by subtraction, and by substitu- tion, plus combinations of these […]216.

2. Asianic Oratory and Some of Its Figures in Anastasius’ Homilia in nouam dominicam et in s. Thomam apostolum Before finally moving on to the specific text prepared for this paper, I would like to briefly address Anastasius’ use of rhythm. The noticeable rhythms and conspicuous figurality of Byzantine festal homilies is deeply

215. RUSSELL – WILSON, MenanderRhetor (n. 174), p. 163. 216. KENNEDY, Progymnasmata (n. 28), p. 70. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 491 indebted to the so-called “Asianic” style in Hellenistic oratory217. It is also, however, a manifestation of the proximity between Greek lyric forms, such as the hymn, and artistic prose which borrowed stylistic features from poetry218, itself closely related with the addressing of the gods at festivals and rhetorical contests of antiquity. Its distinct rhythms and flashy figurality, its penchant for antithesis and parallelism proved a useful tool for the complexities of Byzantine theology. Asianism is basically the vocal opponent of Atticism. Probably the earliest example of its Christian use is the Peri Pascha of Melito of Sardis (CPG 1092). The tradition reaches back to Plato’s Gorgias and continues in an unbroken continuity to Gregory of Corinth and Michael Choniates219 in the thirteenth century. It can be characterized by a certain disconnectedness, short, self-contained clauses and balance of phrase with an eccentric word order. One obvious tool is tonic rhythm without poetic metre – metre would make it poetry and no longer prose. Lucian recommends, “everything to sing and give it a ring”: πάντα σοι ᾀδέσθω καὶ μέλος γιγνέσθω220. Rhyme, accumulation and redundancy, chiastic syntactical structures, cola or commata as antithetical or parallel pairs, paradox and antithesis, to name only a few of the more common devices in the rhetor’s toolbox, play a role in making the Byzantine panegyric homily a suitable companion to the festal character of the poetry, chant, prayers and litanies of liturgical celebra- tion221. It has already been observed above that the panegyric prose climax into khairetismoi and actual poetic verse at the end of Anastasius’ Sermo detransfiguratione. Finally, one of the figures of diction used extensively by Anastasius throughout his writings, not just his homilies, is something called Parison. An anonymous treatise Onthefiguresofdiction (Περὶτῶνσχημάτωντοῦ λόγου) offers a concise description:

Parison is formed when two or more cola have, most importantly, an equal number of syllables. If this is not the case, then [when they are] equivalent with respect to gender, number, and also tense and rhythm, as for example,

217. H. ANTONIADIS-BIBICOU, ByzantiumandtheAsiaticModeofProduction, in Econ- omyandSociety 6 (1977) 347-376. 218. ARISTOTLE, Arsrhetorica III, 1, 1404A, trans. LAWSON-TANCRED (n. 162), pp. 289- 290; and a concise discussion in G.A. KENNEDY (ed.), TheCambridgeHistoryofLiterary Criticism. Vol. 1:ClassicalCriticism, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 184- 199. 219. S.P. LAMBROS (ed.), ΜιχαὴλἈκομινάτουτοῦΧωνιάτουτὰσωζόμενα, 2 vols., Athens, 1879-1880. 220. LUCIAN, Rhetorumpraeceptor 19, ll. 1-2, ed. A.M. HARMON, vol. 4, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1925. 221. For instance VALIAVITCHARSKA, RhetoricandRhythm(n. 163), pp. 23-89; EAD., RhetoricintheHands (n. 161); M.D. LAUXTERMANN, TheSpringofRhythm:AnEssayon thePoliticalVerseandOtherByzantineMetres (Byzantina Vindobonensia, 22), Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1999, pp. 69-86. 492 K. TERZOPOULOS

“these are the motives of humans, while those, the impulses of apes” [τίνα τῶν ἀνθρώπων κινήματα, τίνα δὲ τῶν πιθήκων ὁρμήματα]. If therefore, something is a parison, it is also homoiokatalêkton [i.e. it has identical endings], but if it is homoiokatalêkton, it may not be a parison yet. For the one [i.e. the homoiokatalēkton] has the same final syllables only, while the other [i.e. the parison] has in everything similarity and also an identical beat [i.e. rhythm]222.

A comparison and discussion reviewing and analyzing all the homilies believed to be penned by Anastasius is not feasible in the context of this paper; so, offered below is a concerted look at the first few periods of one of the homilies I consider to be a beautiful example of Byzantine homiletics, Anastasius’ Innouamdominicametins.Thomamapostolum. His style in this homily also has its parallels in the others. Hence, in place of enumerating generalities, select, specific instances can be itemized, illuminating elements of the Sinai monk from Amathus’ homiletic style, thus offering a more vivid and detailed insight into his rhetorical and exegetical appropriations of Scripture.

III. ANALYSIS OF SECTIONS I-III OF THE HOMILIAINNOUAMDOMINICAMET INS.THOMAMAPOSTOLUM (CPG 7755; 5058; BHG 1837B)

The first three sections of the unedited homily currently under preparation are presented here with running annotations pointing out the various elements behind Anastasius’ compositional technique. Please note that all line formatting and underlining is my own. Italicized words are Scriptural quotes.

I.1. Φαιδρῶς ὁμοῦ καὶ θεοσεβῶς 1 τὴν σωτήριον καὶ ζωοδῶρον Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ 2 προεορτάσαντες ἀνάστασιν. 3 ἐπὶ ταύτην ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνης τὴν καινὴν 4 προσαγορευομένην Κυριακὴν κατηντήσαμεν, 5 ὡς δυνάμεως εἰς δύναμιν φιλεόρτως πορευόμενοι. 6

From the very first words of the opening sentence Anastasius’ concern for parallelism of form, meticulous word arrangement or composition (sunthēkē223 or suntaxis) and sound repetition or anadiplōsis (a doubling or folding, the repetition of the last word of a preceding clause)224, even echo, common to the epideictic rhetorical tradition is introduced. The long

222. Onthefiguresofdiction 15, ed. L. SPENGEL,RhetoresGraeci, vol. 3, Leipzig, Teub- ner, 1856, pp. 185-186. Trans. by VALIAVITCHARSKA, RhetoricandRhythm(n. 163), p. 73. 223. In the DeIdeis, especially the first two chapters, within the context of discussing Clarity (saphēneia) and Purity (katharotēs): RABE (ed.), Hermogenisopera (n. 163), pp. 226- 234. 224. Cf. Onthefiguresofdiction 3, ed. SPENGEL (n. 222), p. 182. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 493 sounds of the ōmĕga in φαιδρῶς … θεοσεβῶς … ζωοδῶρον, and the elon- gated ēta preceeded by the ōmĕga in σωτήριον coupled with the long diphthong omikronhupsilon in ὁμοῦ and the phrase χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ signal an imposing tonal resonance as a kind of solemn, but highly musical prelude to the piece. The solemness, however, is balanced so as not to be sombre in character; the movement from one feast to the next – ἐπὶ ταύτην ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνης … κατηντήσαμεν paralleled with ὡς δυνάμεως εἰς δύναμιν … πορευόμενοι – and the references to festival – φαιδρῶς … θεοσεβῶς … προεορτάσαντες … φιλεόρτως – exude the excitement of something new, καινή, as well as a feeling of motion in the sense of liturgical time advancing. Line 6: ὡς δυνάμεως εἰς δύναμιν φιλεόρτως πορευόμενοι] is reminiscent of Gregory of Nyssa’s InsextumPsalmum225, lines 4-5: Just as Ana- stasius prepares to allude to the connection of Jesus’ appearance to the disciples on the eighth day after the resurrection with the eighth day of the age to come he seems to have found inspiration in Gregory’s Insextum Psalmum,utilizing the reference to Ps 83,8, applying it to the occasion of the feast of the New Sunday also commemorating Thomas’ turn from disbelief to faith226.

καινὴ δὲ λέγεται, 7 ὡς ἐν αὐτῇ μέλλοντος τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων 8 ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνακαινίζειν σώματα. 9 κατὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ Κυριακὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων προσαγορεύεται, 10 ὡς ἐν αὐτῇ μελλούσης γίνεσθαι τῆς πάντων 11 τῶν ἀπ᾽αἰῶνος κεκοιμημένων ἀναστάσεως. 12

Lines 8-11: ὡς ἐν αὐτῇ μέλλοντος … ὡς ἐν αὐτῇ μελλούσης] the two commata of rhetorical “figured” discourse point again to Anastasius’ studied composition in the tradition of the epideictic use of figures of diction in the form of epanaphora, the recurrence of a word or phrase at the beginning of successive clauses, albeit in this instance of merely two clauses. Lines 10-12: The statement by Anastasius that the New Sunday – the Sunday after Pascha – is also known as the “Sunday of those that have fallen asleep (died)” is mentioned nowhere else in Greek patristic literature or the Eastern Christian liturgical tradition, as far as I have been able to discern.

225. GREGORY OF NYSSA, InsextumPsalmum, ed. J. MCDONOUGH (GNO, 6), Leiden, Brill, 1962, p. 187,3. 226. Anastasius also refers to the mystical “eighth day” in his own Homiliainsextum Psalmum (PG 89, 1080B; 1117A), as do a number of other early writers – such as Athanasius of Alexandria, Evagrius of Pontus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom – and this, of course, due to the sixth Psalm’s title in the LXX: “To the end, in hymns, concerning the eighth”. 494 K. TERZOPOULOS

ἔστι γὰρ ὀγδόη ὁμοῦ καὶ πρώτη ἡμέρα ἀπὸ τῆς ἐνδόξου Χριστοῦ ἀναστάσεως, 13 σημαίνουσα τὴν μετὰ τὴν ἑβδόμην τοῦ παρόντος αἰῶνος, 14 ὀγδόην καὶ πρώτην καὶ μίαν καὶ αἰώνιον καὶ ἀτελεύτητον ἡμέραν 15 τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ μέλλοντος. 16

Lines 13-14 and 15-16: These two cola attain a parallel of composition via the words ὀγδόη, πρώτη and αἰῶνος, while also attaining a kind of sunkrisis (comparison) of the παρόντος αἰῶνος (present age) and αἰῶνος τοῦ μέλλοντος (future age). As mentioned above, Anastasius makes use of the eighth day of the new age and its type in the Hebrew circumcision in his InsextumPsal- mum, but clear reference to the eighth as the first of Christ is also found in the Hexaemeron in familiar Anastasian terminology: λοιπὸν ἀπό- στηθι τῆς ἑβδόμης ἡμέρας σου καὶ φθάσον εἰς τὴν ὀγδόην καὶ πρώ- την Χριστοῦ, ἵνα λάβῃς τὴν πνευματικὴν περιτομὴν ἐπὶ ταῖς αἰσθή- σεσί σου τὴν Τριάδα τὴν ἁγίαν δεχόμενος καὶ γινόμενος καλὴ ὀγδοάς (Hex. VII, 444-447)227.

I.2. Ἐν τῇ προλαβούσῃ ἑορτῇ 17 Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀπαρχὴ 18 τῆς ἀφθαρσίας τῶν κεκοιμημένων (1 Cor 15,20)· 19 ἐν ταύτῃ 20 τὴν πάσης τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος ἐκ νεκρῶν μέλλουσαν 21 ἀφθαρσίαν [γίνεσθαι] προεορτάζομεν. 22

Lines 17-22: The sunkrisis of the present and the future age continues – ἐν τῇ προλαβούσῃ ἑορτῇ … Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται … ἀπαρχὴ τῆς ἀφθαρ- σίας τῶν κεκοιμημένων / ἐν ταύτῃ … πάσης ἀνθρωπότητος ἐκ νεκρῶν μέλλουσαν ἀφθαρσίαν – preparing the way for an allegorical typology Anastasius will use in the next section (I.3) while he simultaneously emphasizes the concept of the New Sunday as a forefeast (προε- ορτάζομεν) of the Sunday of those that have fallen asleep.

πρότερον· Οὔσης ὀψίας τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ (Jn 20,19), 23 τὴν πρώτην αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος παρουσίαν 24 ἀναστὰς ἐκ νεκρῶν τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐποιήσατο· 25

σήμερον, τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ὀγδόῃ, 26 εἰς τύπον τῆς μελλούσης αὐτοῦ δευτέρας παρουσίας, 27 δευτέραν πάλιν παρουσίαν τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐνεφάνισε. 28

227. Cf. ORIGEN (?), SelectainPsalmos, PG 12, 1061D–1064A: Δι᾽ ἣν ἀνάστασιν τοῦ κυρίου τῇ μετὰ τὸ Σάββατον ἡμέρᾳ, ἥτις ἦν ὀγδόη, γενομένην, εἰς τύπον καινῆς ζωῆς, τοιαύτης οἶμαι προγραφῆς τὸν ψαλμὸν ἠξιῶσθαι. εἰσὶ μὲν πάντες οἱ ἐπιγεγραμμένοι «ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀλλοιωθησομένων» τὸν ἀριθμὸν τέσσαρες. τούτων ὁ μὲν πεντηκοστὸς ἔννατος δοκεῖ μοι τὴν τῶν ἐθνῶν ἀλλοίωσιν ἣν πεπόνθασι μεταβάντες ἐκ τῆς δεισιδαίμονος πλά- νης ἐπὶ τὴν εὐσέβειαν τοῦ τῶν ὅλων θεοῦ σημαίνειν. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 495

Lines 23-28: The sunkrisis develops to move precisely into the feast’s narrative. Anastasius quotes the first words of the Gospel reading and commences a typology of Jesus’ two appearances to the disciples on the first and eighth days after the resurrection claiming the second parousia (presence) on the eighth day as a type of the future eternal eighth day – a kind of arithmological etymology.

I.3. Τῇ πρώτῃ Χριστοῦ πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς παρουσίᾳ, 29 Θωμᾶς ὁ λεγόμενος δίδυμος (Jn 11,16; 20,24; 21,2) οὐκ ἐπίστευσεν, 30 οὐ γὰρ ἦν μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν· 31 τῇ δὲ δευτέρᾳ καθόδῳ, καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν συνηγμένος τοῖς λοιποῖς μαθηταῖς, 32 καὶ ἰδὼν τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς τύπους τῶν ἥλων 33 ἐν τῷ δεσποτικῷ σώματι, 34 πιστὸς γέγονεν ἐξ ἀπιστίας. 35

Lines 29-35: Sunkrisis of Christ’s first parousia and second ‘return’ (kathodos). In the first Thomas didumosdid not believe because he was not with the disciples. In the second, being with the rest of the disciples and seeing the marks of the nails in his hands from faithlessness became a believer. This sets up the typological allegory for Thomas that is fully revealed in the next few lines with the explanation of the didumos eponym. Line 32: καθόδῳ] Mss ω1, εἰσόδῳ Mss ω2βγ. There is a clear revision of καθόδῳ to εἰσόδῳ between the two main text traditions for the homily, ω1 and ω2βγ; nevertheless, the enthymeme is not affected.

ἴσως τύπον εἶναι τὸν Θωμᾶν τὸν λεγόμενον δίδυμον τοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων λαοῦ· 36 οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς δίδυμος, 37 ἤγουν δίψυχος (cf. Jas 1,8; 4,8) ὁμοῦ καὶ δίγνωμος, ὃς 38 τῇ πρώτῃ Χριστοῦ παρουσίᾳ οὐκ ἐπίστευσεν, 39 ὡς κεχωρισμένος ὑπάρχων ἡμῶν τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ μαθητῶν καὶ πιστῶν· 40 τῇ δὲ δευτέρᾳ καὶ μελλούσῃ παρουσίᾳ πιστεύσουσιν, 41 ὅτε ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν 42 (Jn 19,37; cf. Zech 12,10; Rev 1,7; Justin, DialoguscumTryphone xiv, 8,6), 43 ὅτε τοὺς τύπους τῶν ἥλων καὶ τῆς λόγχης θεάσονται· 44 τότε γνώσονται ὅτι κύριος καὶ Θεὸς τῶν ὅλων ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός. 45

Lines 36-38: Θωμᾶν τὸν λεγόμενον δίδυμον … δίδυμος … δίψυχος … δίγνωμος] Gennadius Scholarius writes in his Grammatica regarding dis: “Also those that have been composed from dis, which mean the second, and something else with which it is combined, such as dignomos,dilogos, Dithyramb, Dionysius; didymus”228. Save the use in some medieval Cypriot

228. L. PETIT – X.A. SIDERIDES – M. JUGIE (eds.), ŒuvrescomplètesdeGeorges(Gen- nadios)Scholarios, vol. 8.2, Paris, Maison de la bonne presse, 1936, p. 434: Ὡσαύτως καὶ τὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ δις, ὃ σημαίνει τὸ δεύτερον, καί τινος ἑτέρου συγκείμενα, οἷον δίγνωμος, δίλογος, Διθύραμβος, ὁ Διόνυσος· δίδυμος. 496 K. TERZOPOULOS poetry229, I have not found any other references attributing these characteristics to the apostle Thomas in Greek patristic literature. Hence, I suppose it must be concluded that this is either a tradition Anastasius had received from some source unknown to us or is an original insight. His etymological anagogical typology hinges on the connection. Lines 39-45: τῇ πρώτῃ … παρουσίᾳ / τῇ δὲ δευτέρᾳ …] Parallel form for the sunkrisis of the typology of Thomas and the Judaean people. Like Thomas, in the first parousia they did not believe – being separated from the disciples and believers in the Christ of God; in the second parousia when “they shall look on him whom they pierced” (Jn 19,37) and when they shall see the marks of the nails and the spear, then they will know the Christ is Lord and God of all. Lines 42-45: ὅτε … ὅτε … τότε] The pairing of commata in lines 42 and 44 is resolved with the concluding colon and statement of point that begins with tote on line 45, obviously a calculated resonance with the two ὅτε – hence, a type of almost rhyming anaphora figure creating a figure of thought (skhēma lexeōs). Also, this recognition of the Christ as both Lord and God is for Anastasius a clear reference to his humanity and divinity230. Later on in the homily (V.5), when he comes to portray Thomas’ ensuing belief using an ēthopoeia it will be this revelation of the God-man Christ – in essence, the Chalcedonean definition of the two natures of Christ regarding which Anastasius spent so much time and energy defending – that brings him to belief231! In the next four sections (II-V) Anastasius will examine the appearance events in the Gospel of John line by line, thus, setting off this first section as a prooemium, “preparing the way for what is to follow”232.

229. K. HATZEIOANNOU, Ἐτυμολογικὰκαὶἑρμηνευτικὰεἰςτινὰςλέξειςτῆςμεσαιωνικῆς ἑλληνικῆς, in Ἀθηνᾶ 73-74 (1972-1973) [= Λειμωνάριον.Τιμητικὴπροσφορὰτῷκαθηγητῇ ΝικολάῳΒ.Τωμαδάκῃ], 32-42, writes that the word δίδυμος is used in sixteenth century erotic poems to refer to those who are ambiguous, the one who cannot decide, ὁ ἀμφιβάλ- λοντας, ὁ ἀμφιταλαντευόμενος, ὁ ἀμφιρρεπὴς στὴ γνώμη (pp. 32-33). 230. Just to point to a few instances cf. ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Hexaemeron VIIb, 549 (n. 32), p. 260; Sermo III, 3,42 (CCSG, 12); Hodegos X.1, 2,113 (CCSG, 8). 231. ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Homiliainnouamdominicam V.5: Ταῦτα ἀκούσας παρὰ τοῦ δεσπότου ὁ Θωμᾶς, καὶ πλησθεὶς Πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ χαρᾶς, ἀπέβαλε τὴν ἀπιστίαν· ἀπώσατο τὴν ἀμφίβολον γνώμην· ἀπέρριψε τὴν κατήφειαν· ἐνεδύσατο παρὰ τοῦ δεσπό- του θάρσος, καὶ ἐκτείνας αὐτοῦ τὸν τῆς χειρὸς δάκτυλον χαίρων ὁμοῦ καὶ τρέμων, τῆς δεσποτικῆς ἁπτόμενος πλευρᾶς, ἐβόα λέγων· Σὺ κύριόςμουκαὶὁθεόςμου (Jn 20,28), ἡ διττὴ φύσις, τὸ μοναδικὸν πρόσωπον· κύριος κατὰ τὸ ὁρώμενον, θεὸς κατὰ τὸ νοούμενον. οἶδα τίνος πλευρὰν ψηλαφῶ· οἶδα καὶ οὐκ ἀγνοῶ, τοῦτο παρὰ σοῦ τοῦ ψηλαφωμένου μαθών. A parallel application of the two natures doctrine to the Thomas event also in PROCLUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, Hom.ins.apostolumThomam, XII, 44 and XIII, 47, ed. F.J. LEROY, L’homilétiquedeProclusdeConstantinople (Studi e Testi, 247), Città del Vaticano, Biblio- theca Apostolica Vaticana, 1967. 232. Aristotle, TheArtofRhetoric, trans. LAWSON-TANCRED (n. 162), 3.14, 1414B, p. 330: “The prelude is similar to the introduction of epideictic oratory; indeed flautists, by putting in the prelude whatever they should be able to play well, connect it with the tonic key, APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 497

II.1. Ἀλλ᾽ἴδωμεν λοιπόν, εἰ δοκεῖ, 46 τί καὶ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν φησι 47 περί τε τοῦ Θωμᾶ, 48 περί τε τῆς φυγῆς τῶν μαθητῶν, 49 καὶ τῆς τοῦ δεσπότου πρὸς αὐτοὺς αἰφνιδίου παρουσίας· 50

Lines 46-50: Anastasius’ chronology is based on the Johannine Gospel account at chapter 20,19-29. Without loosing sight of the necessary charm of parēchēsis (echoing the same sound)233 called for in the panegyric oration – in this case the long ēsound: εἰ δοκεῖ, τί καὶ … φησι … περί τε … περί τε … τῆς φυγῆς … καὶ τῆς. Anastasius enumerates three points to bring to his audience’s attention which serve as headings (kephalaia)234 to be confirmed (kataskeuē)235 in Anastasius’ “proofs” that follow: what the Gospel says (a) regarding Thomas, (b) the flight of the disciples, and (c) Jesus’ unforseen parousia. Οὔσης ὀψίας τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν Σαββάτων, 51 καὶ τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων ὅπου ἦσαν οἱ μαθηταὶ συνηγμένοι 52 διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἰουδαίων, 53 ἔρχεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔστη εἰς τὸ μέσον αὐτῶν καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν. 54

Lines 51-54: For the most part, the quote is directly from John 20,19 with the following exceptions: the word ἔρχεται in line 54 replaces ἦλθεν, which brings the scene into the present tense and the word αὐτῶν in the same line, which visually enhances the scene. Both changes serve to put a spotlight on the narration upon which he will embark. II.2. Καὶ τίνος χάριν μὴ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς Χαίρετε εἴρηκε, 55 καθὰ καὶ πρὸς τὰς μυροφόρους γυναῖκας; 56 τίνος χάριν πρεπόντως σφόδρα πάντα ἐν σοφίᾳ ἐποίησεν καὶ ἐλάλησεν. 57

Lines 55-57: Anastasius now introduces another sunkrisis, this time with regards to why Jesus’ first salutation after the Resurrection was different to the myrhbearing women (with “Rejoice”, Mt 28,9) than it was to the disciples (that is, with “Peace be unto you”, Jn 20,19); the comparison is framed in the form of a question. His preliminary answer in line 57 is to quote Ps 103,24, assuring the audience the answer will reveal God’s wisdom. ταῖς μὲν γὰρ γυναιξί, 58 τὴν χαρὰν ἐφθέγξατο ἀφανίζων λοιπὸν τὴν λύπην τῆς Εὔας 59 διὰ τῆς χαρᾶς ἐκ τοῦ γυναικείου γένους· 60 and that is how one should write in display speeches, speaking out immediately what one wants to say and so setting the tone in connecting this with the subject”. 233. PS.-HERMOGENES, OnInvention IV, 7, in KENNEDY – RABE, InventionandMethod (n. 61), pp. 172-173. 234. Ibid., III, 4, pp. 72-73. 235. Ibid., I, 15, pp. 24-29; III, 15, pp. 126-135. 498 K. TERZOPOULOS

Line 59: τὴν λύπην τῆς Εὔας] found in Ps.-Epiphanius of Salamis, Hom.indivinicorporissepulturam (PG 43, 449B). τοῖς δὲ ἀποστόλοις 61 ἐπειδὴ εἰς πόλεμον αὐτοὺς ἔμελλεν ἐξαποστέλλειν φοβερὸν 62 εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην 63 κατὰ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῆς πλάνης [καὶ τῶν ἀνόμων], 64 τούτου χάριν αὐτοῖς τὴν εἰρήνην ἐφόδιον καὶ συνοδοιπόρον 65 ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ δίδωσι. 66

Lines 62-66: εἰς πόλεμον … ἔμελλεν ἐξαποστέλειν φοβερὸν … ἐφό- διον καὶ συνοδοιπόρον ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ δίδωσι] The idea that peace was given to the disciples as comfort and encouragement since Jesus’ intention was to send them into battle is found in a passage of John Chrysostom’s HomiliaeinJoannem236. Yet another inference and hint to Anastasius’ familiarity with the patristic exegetical tradition. II.3. Πλὴν ὅτι 67 καὶ ἐν ταράχῳ ὑπῆρχον οἱ μαθηταὶ 68 καὶ ἐν φυγῇ 69 καὶ ἐν δειλίᾳ καὶ ἀποκρυβῇ, 70 καὶ ἐν λύπῃ 71 καὶ ἐν ἀπορίᾳ 72 καὶ ἐν μυρίοις λογισμοῖς, 73 οὐδέπω γὰρ εἶχον τὸ τέλειον· 74 οὐδέπω γὰρ ᾔδεισαν τὴν γραφήν, 75 ὅτι δεῖ τὸν Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῆναι. 76 διό περ ὡς εἰκὸς καὶ τοιαῦτά τινα ἐν ἀθυμίᾳ ὑπῆρχον, 77 πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς διελογίζοντο 78 ἀπηλπικότες ἤδη καὶ μηδαμῶς προσδοκῶντες τὴν Χριστοῦ ἀνάστασιν, 79 ἀλλ᾽ἐν ἑαυτοῖς διαποροῦντες καὶ ἔφασκον· 80

Lines 67-80: A sense of rhythmical flow is established by use of anaphora in the commata of lines 68-73. The climax comes in the statements of lines 74-75/6 which also use the repetition (anaphora) of οὐδέπω γὰρ… stating, respectively, that (a) the disciples had not reached perfect understanding (b) as Scripture Anastasius quotes reveals, “For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead” (Jn 20,9); Anastasius replaces “he” with “the Christ”, making clear the meaning to his audience.

236. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, Hom.inJoannem 86, 2-3, PG 59, 470,47-57: Ἅπαντα δὲ ταῦτα ἐνῆγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς πίστιν ἀκριβεστάτην. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ πόλεμον ἄσπονδον εἶχον πρὸς Ἰουδαίους, συνεχῶς ἐπιλέγει τὸ, Εἰρήνηὑμῖν, ἀντίῤῥοπον διδοὺς τοῦ πολέμου τὴν παρα- μυθίαν. Τοῦτο γοῦν πρῶτον μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν εἶπε τὸ ῥῆμα (διὸ καὶ Παῦλος πανταχοῦ φησι, Χάριςὑμῖνκαὶεἰρήνη)· ταῖς δὲ γυναιξὶ χαρὰν εὐαγγελίζεται, διότι ἐν λύπαις τὸ γένος ἐκεῖνο ἦν, καὶ ταύτην ἐδέξατο πρώτην χαράν. Καταλλήλως μὲν οὖν τοῖς ἀνδράσι, διὰ τὸν πόλεμον, εἰρήνην· ταῖς δὲ γυναιξὶ, διὰ τὴν λύπην, εὐαγγελίζεται χαράν. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 499

His purpose in these lines is to set the stage for the ēthopoeia of imaginary dialogue he places in the disciples’ minds, deliberating within themselves for the duration of the rest of section II. Πῶς ὁ πνεύμασιν ἀκαθάρτοις φοβερός, 81 ὑπὸ ἀνόμων ἐδεσμήθη ὡς βροτός; 82 πῶς ὁ ξηράνας τὴν συκῆν διὰ ψιλοῦ ῥήματος, 83 τὴν μιαρὰν δεξιὰν τοῦ ῥαπίσαντος αὐτὸς οὐκ ἐξήρανε; 84 πῶς ὁ ἐξ ᾅδου ἀναστήσας νεκρούς, 85 οὐ παρέπεμψε ζῶντας ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ νεκρούς; 86

Lines 81-86: Once again, anaphora – πῶς ὁ… πῶς ὁ… πῶς ὁ… – is used in order to drive home the fear and confusion the disciples had within them by creating an ēthopoeia of their thoughts which begins here and continues through to the end of section II. The inner conflict of the disciples is dramatised beginning with three questions: how is it possible? … how is it possible? … how is it possible? … This -ως ending will persist throughout the ēthopoeia. There is a clear duality of thought for each of the three pairs of commata. In the first comma of each pair some miracle of Christ’s divinity is alluded to and in the second comma of each pair some aspect of his passion and suffering as to his human nature with a slight change in the final couplet. Specifically, (a) the power to command unclean spirits (Mk 1,27; Lk 4,36) is paired with the fact that he was bound as a mortal man (Mt 22,13; 27,2; Mk 15,1); (b) Jesus’ withering of the fig tree (Mt 21,19; Mk 11,13.20- 21; Lk 13,6-7) is coupled with his being struck during the passion (Mk 14,65; Jn 18,22; 19,3), but via reference to an early Christian work Anastasius has also referenced in his Hodegos (XII, 2,18-19, cf. XII, 3,66-67) and Hom.inpassionemIesuChristi (Paris.gr. 1504, fol. 149, col. b, ll. 1-3); namely, Melito of Sardis’ Depascha: ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ἀνῄρεται ὑπὸ δεξιᾶς Ἰσραηλίτιδος237; the final couplet (c) cites the opening of the graves and the bodies of the saints which slept arising upon Christ’s death on the Cross (Mt 27,52-53), the second part asking how he did not send them all alive into Hades as retribution. II.4. Ἀλλ᾽οὕτω πως, 87 ἐγεννήθη ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἀβοήθητος (Isa 53,7; Ps 37,14)· 88 οὕτω πως, 89 ἐδεσμεύθη· [xx/x] [4syllableseach,parison] 90 ἐξετάσθη· [xx/x] 91 ἐνεπτύσθη· [xx/x] 92 ἐμαστίχθη· [xx/x] 93 κατεκρίθη· [xx/x] 94

237. MELITO OF SARDIS, DePascha 96 (ll. 736-737), ed. O. PERLER, SC 123, Paris, Cerf, 1966, p. 118. Cf. ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Hodegos XII, 2, 19 (CCSG, 8), p. 293 (= fragment 7): Ὁ Θεὸς πέπονθεν ὑπὸ δεξιᾶς Ἰσραηλίτιδος. 500 K. TERZOPOULOS

ἐσταυρώθη· [xx/x] 95 προσηλώθη. [xx/x] 96 οὕτως 97 ὡς κακοῦργος, μετὰ κακούργων· 98 ὡς ἄνομος, ὑπὸ ἀνόμων κατεδικάσθη· 99 ὡς πρόβατον οὐκ ἀνοίγων τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ, ἐπὶ τὴν σφαγὴν ἤχθη· 100 ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἀβοήθητος, πρὸς Θεὸν ἐβόησεν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ λέγων· 101 Ἐλωεί, ἐλωεί, λεμᾶ σαβαχθανί· 102 τοῦτ᾽ἔστιν, ὁ Θεός μου ὁ Θεός μου, ἵνα τί ἐγκατέλειπές με; 103

Lines 87-103: Section II.4 utilizes an accumulation of the -ως ending begun in line 81 of II.3 with the response to the disciples’ own question of οὕτω πως… (lines 87 and 89), and after the parison238 of lines 90-96 of equal syllables with rhythmic stress on the penultimate and homoiokatalēkton (another word for homoioteleuton, meaning “like ending”), Anastasius proceeds to use the anaphora dictional figure οὕτως ὡς… ὡς… ὡς… of two clauses with paronomasia (resemblance in sound) – κακοῦργος… κακούργων and ἄνομος… ἀνόμων – before finally repeating the prophecy from Isa 53,7 and climaxing with Jesus’ words from the Cross quoting Ps 21,2 (Mk 15,34; Mt 27,46). Parēchēsis and alliteration abound. II.5. Πῶς ἔθεντο αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐν λάκκῳ κατωτάτῳ; 104 πῶς ἔθεντο αὐτὸν ἐν σκοτεινοῖς καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου; 105 πῶς ἔθεντο αὐτὸν νεκρὸν τὸν ἐν νεκροῖς ἐλεύθερον; 106 πῶς ἔθεντο αὐτὸν βδέλυγμα ἑαυτοῖς; 107 πῶς παρεδόθη καὶ οὐκ ἐλυτρώθη; [xx/x] 108 ἡμεῖς δὲ ἠλπίζομεν ὅτι 109 αὐτὸς ἦν ὁ μέλλων λυτροῦσθαι τὸν Ἰσραήλ· [22syllables] 110 ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐνομίζομεν ὅτι 111 ὁ ἄλλους σώσας καὶ ἑαυτὸν δύναται σῶσαι· [24syllables] 112 ἀλλ᾽ἰδοὺ τέθνηκεν· [τέθνηκεν = /xx] 113 ἰδοὺ παρὰ ἀνθρώποις ἐκ μέσου γέγονε. [γέγονε = /xx] 114

Lines 104-114: The ēthopoeia of the conflict of thoughts within the disciples continues beginning with five cola, all questions, the first four utilizing the epanaphora of πῶς ἔθεντο αὐτόν, creating a crescendo of uneasy deliberation which culminates in the πῶς … παρεδόθη … ἐλυτρώθη xx/x rhythmic imperfect cadence composed from the Ps 87,9 prophecy. The reflecting four last cola, two pairs of two, at lines 109/110-111/112 and 113-114 bring a decrescendo of emotion ending with a sense of complete despair – τὸν πόλεμον τῶν λογισμῶν, as it will be phrased in the recapitulation below (lines 135/36). The first two cola at 109/110-111/112 use the almost identical ἡμεῖς δὲ ἠλπίζομεν ὅτι and ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐνομίζομεν ὅτι to introduce direct scriptural quotes from the passion narrative: first Lk 24,21 (with a unique ἦν reading found today only in the Bezae codex

238. PS.-HERMOGENES, OnForcefulSpeeking 16, in KENNEDY – RABE, Inventionand Method (n. 61), pp. 231-233. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 501

(05)239) and then Mt 27,42 and Mk 15,31. The final two cola at lines 113-114 beginning with ἰδού have a sense of perfect cadence, both with the short, “but behold, he died”, but also with the terminal-sounding rhythm /xx of τέθνηκεν and γέγονε. My point being, these sections that are all too often dismissed as “rhetorical flourishes” are in fact meticulously constructed firgures of diction and thought – skhēmata lexeōs and dianoias. II.6. Πῶς λοιπὸν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς οἱ αὐτοῦ μαθηταὶ ἀπολογησόμεθα; 115 τί πρὸς Ἰουδαίους περὶ ἀνθρώπου νεκροῦ εἰπεῖν δυνάμεθα; 116 τί περὶ ἀνθρώπου τεθνεῶτος τῷ κόσμῳ κηρύξομεν; 117 πῶς ὑπὲρ κατακριθέντος ἀσχήμῳ θανάτῳ, 118 ἑαυτοὺς εἰς θάνατον παραδώσομεν; 119 τίς εἰς θνητὸν ἀβοήθητον, ὡς εἰς Θεὸν πιστεύσει ἡμῖν; 120 ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ 121 ἐὰν φανῶμεν Ἰουδαίοις, [-x/x] 122 καὶ ἡμεῖς ὡς αὐτὸς θανατούμεθα· [-/xx] 123 ἐὰν ὅλως ὀφθῶμεν Πιλάτῳ, [x/x] 124 καὶ ἡμεῖς ὡς Ἰησοῦς σταυρούμεθα. [-/xx] 125

Lines 115-125: Having marked the ēchēseis and homoiokatalēkseis above, in this last flourish of the present ēthopoeia, after the five questions in 115-120, Anastasius emphasizes the real fear the disciples had for their lives: “διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἰουδαίων” (Jn 20,29). III.1. Ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα τῶν μαθητῶν ὡς εἰκὸς 126 εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἐννοουμένων καὶ κρυπτομένων. 127 Οὔσης ὀψίας τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν Σαββάτων, 128 ἐν ᾗ Χριστὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνέστη, 129 καὶ τῶν θυρῶν μετὰ ἀσφαλείας ἁπάσης κεκλεισμένων 130 ὅπου ἦσαν συνηγμένοι οἱ μαθηταὶ διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἰουδαίων, 131 ἐν μεγάλῃ τε ταραχῇ καὶ θορύβῳ καὶ ἀδολεσχίᾳ 132 οὔσης τῆς ψυχῆς τῶν μαθητῶν, 133 ἔρχεται καὶ εἰσέρχεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ ἔστη εἰς τὸ μέσον αὐτῶν, 134 καὶ καταστέλλων αὐτῶν τὸν θόρυβον καὶ τὸν πόλεμον τῶν λογισμῶν, 135 λέγει· Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν. 136 III.2. Τί τεταραγμένοι ἐστέ, 137 καὶ διὰ τί λογισμοὶ πολλοὶ ἀνέρχονται ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν; 138 θαρσεῖτε καὶ μὴ φοβεῖσθε· 139 θαρσεῖτε, ἐγὼ νενίκηκα τὸν θάνατον· 140 τὸν ᾅδην πεπάτηκα· [-/xx] [7syllables] 141 τὸν Ἀδὰμ ἀνέστησα· [-/xx] [7syllables] 142 τὰ τρόπαια ἔστησα· [-/xx] [7syllables] 143 τὸν τύραννον ἐδέσμευσα· [-/xx] [8syllables] 144 τοὺς δεσμίους ἠλευθέρωσα· [-/xx] [9syllables] 145 τὴν Εὔαν ἀπέλυσα. [-/xx] [7syllables] 146

239. Cf. Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Revised Edition, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012, p. 288. 502 K. TERZOPOULOS

Lines 137-146: Anastasius now shifts to the Lucan narrative at 137, amplifying (auxēsis) Jesus’ words using the other three accounts for his foundation: Mt 14,27 and Mk 6,50 for line 139 and Jn 16,33 at line 140. His expansion plays on the plosive tau (again, ēchēsis) from line 137, binding the six cola at 141-146 with an initial -κα and five -σα endings, but always ending each clause with the so-called “Byzantine accentual cursus”, or accentual “dactyls” (/xx). Three verses of heptasyllable and then a crescendo of an octasyllable followed by an enneasyllable are resolved with the final heptasyllable verse as the final cadence. III.3. Ἔτι δὲ ἀπιστούντων τῶν μαθητῶν ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς καὶ θαυμαζόντων, 147 ἔδειξεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας 148 καὶ τοὺς τύπους τῶν ἥλων καὶ τὴν πλευράν, 149 καὶ τὴν πληγὴν τῆς λόγχης. 150 ἐπὶ πλείω δὲ αὐτῶν θαυμαζόντων καὶ ἐξισταμένων, 151 καταστέλλει αὐτῶν τὸν θόρυβον τῆς ψυχῆς 152 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν, 153 ἵνα καὶ ἀπὸ τούτου μάθωσιν ὅτι ὁ κύριός ἐστι, 154 καὶ ὡς καρδιογνώστης πρὸς τὴν ταραχὴν τῶν λογισμῶν αὐτῶν, 155 τὴν εἰρήνην δίδωσι. 156

Lines 147-156: Continuing with the Lucan narrative it can be observed how Anastasius does not hesitate to transpose verses or even combine and expand Gospel accounts in order to achieve his idea of clausular balance, as well as clarity (saphēneia) and force (deinotēs) of message. This tactic is termed paraphrasisin the Progymnasmata; specifically, we have here a combination of syntactical paraphrase and paraphrase by addition240. The progression for these three lines is as follows: line 147 uses Lk 24,41, exchanging αὐτῶν with τῶν μαθητῶν for clarity; line 148 quotes Lk 24,40, using ἔδειξεν as observed in the Sinaiticus codex instead of the majority text ἐπέδειξεν; and finally, line 149/150 improvises off Jn 20,25. III.4. Διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων εἰσῆλθεν, 157 ἵνα καὶ ἐκ τούτου τοῦ θαύματος 158 αὐτοὺς πληροφορήσῃ [-/x] ὁμοῦ καὶ πείσῃ, [/x] 159 ὅτι ἐσφραγισμένου τοῦ τάφου ἐξῆλθεν, 160 ὥς περ κεκλεισμένων τῶν θυρῶν πρὸς αὐτοὺς εἰσῆλθε· 161 διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἐν ἑσπέρᾳ, 162 ὅτε μάλιστα ἄφοβοι ἦσαν ὁμοῦ, 163 καὶ ἠρεμοῦσαν μικρὸν εἶχον τὴν διάνοιαν. 164

Lines 157-164: Anastasius seems to have read Proclus of Constantinople’s homilyInsanctumapostolumThomam (CPG 5832): καὶ ὥσπερ ἀνῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ τάφου κεκλεισμένου τοῦ τάφου, οὕτως εἰσῆλθε τῇ σαρκὶ ὅπου

240. Cf. AELIUS THEON, Exercises 15, trans. KENNEDY, Progymnasmata (n. 28), p. 70. APPROPRIATIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOMILIES OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA 503

ἦν θεότητι καὶ τὰς θύρας οὐκ ἀνεπέτασεν241. The same turn of phrase, however, is also used by Anastasius himself in the Hodegos: ἀκωλύτως λοιπὸν καὶ τάφου ἐσφραγισμένου ἐξῆλθε, καὶ θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων εἰσῆλθε242. Anastasius gives the same reasoning (διὰ τοῦτο) as Proclus for the miracle, but in his own words. Jesus performed the strange miracle of entering through the closed doors in order to prevail upon or persuade the disciples that he came out of the sealed tomb just as he entered the room through the closed doors; hence, the reason for the alliteration ἐξῆλθεν and εἰσῆλθε of the ending the clauses at lines 160 and 161. Anastasius then adds the reason (διὰ τοῦτο) that Jesus appeared in the late evening: because the disciples were more free from fear, and their thought was more peaceful.

CONCLUSION

I hope that by now the limited discussion to this point has demonstrated that with Anastasius’ homiletic corpus we are dealing with a product of the late antique rhetorical tradition as it was appropriated in the Greek Christian homily, where logic, exegesis, theology, compositional invention and even poetic verse are intricately interwoven in order to visualize truth – Scriptural, ethical, spiritual, doctrinal truth. It is out of the advanced rhetorical skill-sets that Anastasius the homilist applies his rhetorical invention to Christian Scriptural exegesis, anti-heretical polemic and evangelical advice (sumboulē) in the context of his homiletic corpus, all at once argumentative, liturgical, panegyric, performative (epideictic) and celebrative, always with a discerning eye toward mystagogical uplifting (anagogic) paedagogy (katēkhēsis), supporting edification (stēriktikē oikodomē), exhortation (paraklēsis) and comfort (paramuthia) of the Church (1 Cor 14,3).

ABSTRACT. — This paper discusses the exegetical and rhetorical appropriations of Scripture in the homiletic corpus attributed to Anastasius Sinaita. Following the disambiguation of two homilies often attributed to him and some general thoughts on the corpus’ place within the Byzantine tradition of textual transmission, the first

241. PROCLUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, In sanctum apostolum Thomam VII, 21–22, ed. LEROY, L’homilétique(n. 231). 242. ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Hodegos XXIII, 2, 46-47 (CCSG, 8). Cf. PS.-JOHN CHRYSOS- TOM, InsanctumapostolumThomam, PG 59, 683,24–684,1: Καὶ πάλιν, ὥσπερ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ κεκλεισμένου καὶ ἐσφραγισμένου τάφου, οὕτως εἰσῆλθε καὶ τῶν θυρῶν κεκλει- σμένων. Εἰσῆλθε τῇ σαρκί. I express my gratitude to D. Zaganas for pointing out both these references in personal correspondence. 504 K. TERZOPOULOS part of the study explores the thematic ranges and Scriptural exegetical appropriations for each of the six, individual authentic Anastasian homilies. In the second part of the paper the rhetorical appropriations of style in Anastasius’ homiletic work are analysed, incorporating pointed references to important elements in the Late Antique literary tradition of his time, in which he was obviously well trained, including distinct references to the so-called Hermogenic rhetorical sources. Finally, the discussion turns specifically to the first three paragraphs from his to-date unedited Homilia innouamdominicametins.Thomamapostolum (CPG 5058; 7755; BHG 1837B), presented here with accompanying, detailed commentary, highlighting his compositional and rhetorical method.