Except That Christ Never Said: “And the Angel That Spoke in Me Said to Me”» (De Carne Christi, 14.30-41)1 Tertullian, Ebionism and an Ancient Perception of Jesus

Claire CLIVAZ University of Lausanne

«EXCEPT THAT CHRIST NEVER SAID: “AND THE ANGEL THAT SPOKE IN ME SAID TO ME”» (DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41)1 TERTULLIAN, EBIONISM AND AN ANCIENT PERCEPTION OF JESUS

RÉSUMÉ

Le passage du De carne Christi 14,30-41 n’a pas encore reçu toute l’attention qu’il mérite de la part de la recherche au cours du dernier demi-siècle, pour au moins deux raisons. Premièrement, l’édition anglaise de référence, Ernest Evans (1956), ne fait pas complètement justice au texte latin de ce passage, mieux rendu dans l’édition française de Jean-Pierre Mahé (1975). Deuxièmement, Tertullien y atteste que l’ébionisme considérait Jésus comme habité par un ange, un point de vue qui ne correspond pas aux reconstructions de l’ébionisme telles que proposées par la majo- rité des chercheurs. Une analyse détaillée de ce texte montre pourtant qu’il repré- sente bel et bien un indice supplémentaire pour établir l’ancienneté d’une telle perception de Jésus.

ABSTRACT

De carne Christi 14.30-41 has not been given the attention it deserves by scholars over the last 50 years for at least two reasons. First, the widely used 1956 English edition by Ernest Evans does not accurately convey the meaning of the Latin text of this passage: the 1975 French edition by Jean-Pierre Mahé is better. Secondly, Tertullian offers evidence of Ebionite teaching that Jesus was inhabited by an angel, an understanding that is not congruent with many current scholarly reconstructions of Ebionism. A careful analysis of Tertullian’s passage shows that it represents a supplementary clue to establish the antiquity of such a perception of Jesus.

1. In referring to the De carne Christi, the line numbers of the latest English edition are followed (see Ernest EVANS (ed.), Tertullian’s Treatise on the Incarnation, London: SPCK, 1956).

Revue des études juives, 169 (3-4), juillet-décembre 2010, pp. 287-311. doi: 10.2143/REJ.169.3.2061160

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 228787 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 288 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41

1. Tertullian, Ebionite Christology and Forgetting2

The importance of forgetting in the historical process has become more and more important in present historical studies and thinking. We can evoke the last monograph of the French philosopher Paul Ricœur3, or the works of the Dutch and German historians Frank Ankersmit4 and Jan Assmann5. Ass- mann notably integrates the concept of “cultural forgetting” in the historical process, a concept that he borrows from the “cultural latency” of Freudian theory6. This cultural forgetting can sometimes mean a simple and complete rejection of others by the destruction of their traces. However, it can also be translated in a more subtle and nevertheless effective form, when the sources carefully keep elements which the authors view as a counter-image of their own identity. There occurs a particular kind of cultural forgetting that functions as a “normative inversion”, according to Assmann: “Normative inversion keeps a memory of the other alive because this image is needed for contradistinctive self-definition. […] But this memory is not an image of the other religion; it is only a counter-image of one’s own”7. The topic of forgetting and counter-image has not yet been given due consideration in studies of early Christianity8. This paper seeks to demonstrate that this dimension needs to be taken into account in order to understand better what is at stake in a text, and to derive more information from the ancient sources. The example that I will analyze in this sense stands in the De carne Christi 14 — the Treatise on the Incarnation — by Tertullian, a passage that mentions “Ebion”9 and claims to refer to Ebionite ideas. My

2. My thanks are due to Prof. John Gager for his useful advices, and to Dr Jenny Read- Heimerdinger for proof-reading the English text of this article. 3. See Paul RICŒUR, Memory, History, Forgetting, Kathleen BLAMEY, David PELLAUER (trans.), Chicago: University Press, 2004 (French edition: 2000). On the level of history of ideas, it is Friedrich Nietzsche who was the first — and for a long time the only one — to think of history and forgetting as interrelated concepts (see particularly Unzeitgemässe Betra- chtungen, II, edited in Friedrich NIETZSCHE, Werke in drei Bänden, Bd. 1, München: C. Hanser, 19737). After Nietzsche, it was only at the end of the 20th century that Western thinking dared again linking forgetting and history. 4. See Frank ANKERSMIT, “The Sublime Dissociation of the Past: Or How to Be(come) What One is no Longer”, History and Theory 40/3 (2001), pp. 295-323. 5. See Jan ASSMANN, Moses the Egyptian. The Memory of Egypt Western Monotheism, Cambridge MA/London: Harvard University Press, 1997. 6. See ASSMANN, Moses the Egyptian. The Memory of Egypt Western Monotheism, p. 215. 7. Ibid., p. 216. 8. But see for example François BOVON, “The Apostolic Memories in Early Christianity”, in ID., Studies in Early Christianity (WUNT 161), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003, pp. 1-16. 9. I agree with the majority point of view that such a person, named “Ebion”, is a fictitious person extrapolated by the apologetic Fathers from “Ebionism” (see for example Eva SCHULZ- FLÜGEL, Paul MATTEI (eds.), Tertullien. Le voile des vierges (De uirginibus uelandis) (SC 424),

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 228888 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41 289

contention is that Tertullian gives us here a particular insight into Ebionism, but also provokes a “cultural forgetting”, because he transmits only partially the Ebionite ideas to which he refers. Ernest Evans offered the last Latin critical edition of the De carne Christi in English speaking scholarship (1956). Here is his translation of 14.30-41: So then, even as [the Son] is made less than the angels while clothed with manhood, even so he is not less if clothed with an angel. This view of the matter could have suited Ebion who determines that Jesus is a bare man, merely of the seed of David, and therefore not also the Son of God — though clearly he speaks of himself in somewhat higher terms than the prophets use concerning themselves — so as to state (dicatur) that an angel was in him (in illo) in the same way as in Zechariah, for example (quemadmodum in aliquo Zach- aria): though we object that the words, And the angel that spoke in me said unto me, were never used by Christ. Nor indeed was that habitual expression of all the prophets, Thus saith the Lord: for he was himself the Lord, declaring openly and on his own authority, But I say unto you. What more do we need, when we hear Isaiah crying out, Not an angel nor a delegate, but the Lord himself hath saved them? 10

Even though present research is preoccupied with a correct definition and perception of the Ebionites, this passage has not really been taken into account11. Tertullian is indeed generally considered as depending on Ire- naeus12 “in everything he says about Ebionite Christology, except that he ascribes it to ‘Hebion’”, as Oskar Skarsaune asserts13. But Skarsaune designates as another exception the passage of De carne Christi 14.30-41: “On one point, however, Tertullian seems to go beyond Irenaeus. He seems to attest to Ebionite Christology of the end-time-prophet type”14. Analyzing

Paris: Cerf, 1997, p. 221, footnote on chapter 6.1; Oskar SKARSAUNE, “The Ebionites”, in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries, Oskar SKARSAUNE, Reidar HVALVIK (eds), Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007, pp. 419-462; here p. 421. Consequently, I write “Ebion” in this article. 10. TERTULLIAN, De carne Christi 14.30-41 (EVANS (ed.), Tertullian’s Treatise on the Incar- nation, pp. 51-53). 11. For example, the passage is quoted in footnotes, but not analyzed by Simon C. MIMOUNI, Le judéo-christianisme ancien. Essais historiques (Patrimoines), Paris: Cerf, 1998, p. 124, note 1, and p. 132, note 3. But see the exception of the attitude of Barbel with respect to the passage expressed in 1941: Joseph BARBEL, Christos Angelos. Die Anschauung von Christus als Bote und Engel in der gelehrten und volkstümlichen Literatur des christlichen Altertums. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Ursprungs und der Fortdauer des Arian- ismus (Theophania 3), Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1941, pp. 285-286. 12. See for example EVANS (ed.), Tertullian’s Treatise on the Incarnation, p. 143; A.F.J. KLIJN – G.J. REININK, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 36), Leiden: Brill, 1973, p. 21. 13. SKARSAUNE, “The Ebionites”, p. 431. 14. Ibid., p. 431.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 228989 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 290 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41

the text briefly, Skarsaune concludes: “Tertullian may have had information additional to what is contained in the preserved writings of Irenaeus, but we cannot be sure”15. If this author remains prudent in his evaluation, it was not the case of Klijn and Reinink in 1973. They vigorously refused to see any special information from Tertullian about Ebionism in De carne Christi 14.30-41: This passage has been taken as a proof that Tertullian wishes to show that Ebion considered Jesus to be an angel16. But this conclusion cannot be accepted. […] The whole passage is based on a suggestion made by Tertullian who obviously started from his knowledge that Ebion wished to prove that Jesus was a prophet. Tertullian says that this could be proved with reference to Zech 1.14, provided one accepts that Christ has assumed the nature of an angel. This means that Ebion did not use Zech 1.14 in order to prove his ideas, that he did not say that Jesus was an angel, and that he only spoke of Jesus as prophet17.

In their statement, Klijn and Reinink make both a mistake and a questionable assumption. First, what is at stake in this passage of Tertullian is not if Jesus “was an angel”, whatever opinion might have been held by “Ebion”, or according to Tertullian’s view of “Ebion”, or only according to Tertul- lian’s rhetorical argument. It is a matter here of a possible angelic inhabitation of Jesus, or of determining if “an angel was in him (in illo)” (De carne Christi 14.34-35), which is not the same concept as the assimilation of Jesus with an angel. All of chapter 14 has to be read carefully to distinguish more precisely between the opinions of the Western Valentinians, of Tertullian and of the Ebionites regarding this topic: this will be the task of part 3 in this article. I will then seek to understand what Tertullian transmits about an Ebionite perception of Jesus, a very ancient one in my opinion (part 4). Secondly, Klijn and Reinink make a questionable assumption by considering that Tertullian clearly refers to Zech 1.14 with the expression quemadmodum in aliquo Zacharia (De carne Christi 14.35). Both scholars are so convinced by this reference that they do not translate the term aliquo in the Latin expression18, a term that Evans had translated by “for example” (“as in Zechariah, for example”19). In a quite different way, the French editor of

15. Ibid., p. 432. 16. They refer here to the famous debate between Werner and Michaelis about angelic Christology, and note the following references: Martin WERNER, Der Entstehung der christlichen Dogma, Bern/Leipzig: Paul Haupt, 1941, pp. 331-332; Wilhelm MICHAELIS, Zur Engel- christologie im Urchristentum. Abbau der Konstruction Martin Werners, Basel: Heinrich Majer, 1942, pp. 148-153 (see KLIJN, REININK, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, p. 21, note 1). 17. KLIJN – REININK, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, pp. 21-22. 18. See ibid., p. 109. 19. See EVANS (ed.), Tertullian’s Treatise on the Incarnation, p. 53.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 229090 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41 291

the De carne Christi, Jean-Pierre Mahé, translated the expression by “as in a certain Zechariah”20, which corresponds exactly to the Latin expression. Furthermore, this choice respects the comparison postulated between two characters in the text: “an angel was in him (in illo) as in a certain Zecha- riah”. As I will demonstrate in part 2, Evans also understood in aliquo Zacharia as referring not to a text but to a character, to the prophet Zechariah. Mahé understood the expression as referring imprecisely to a certain Zechariah, but he did not specify which one it could have been21. So only Klijn and Reinink understand in aliquo Zacharia as referring directly to Zech 1.14, followed by Skarsaune who uses their translation22. This diversity of understanding leads us to examine more precisely what are the links to Zechariah 1 in our passage, either for Tertullian, or for “Ebion”. The difficulty of interpretation for in aliquo Zacharia illustrates a further important problem. The latest English (1956) and French (1975) critical editors of the Latin text did not understand the passage in the same way. Indeed, Evans and Mahé do not agree about the delimitation of the statements and opinions attributed by Tertullian to “Ebion”, a disagreement that even has consequences for their editorial choices in establishing the Latin text. Our first task will then be to compare both editions and translations of the passage.

2. A Difficult Latin Text to Edit and to Translate: De carne Christi 14.32-37

Evans understands that in De carne Christi 14.32-37 Tertullian presents Ebionite ideas only in the first part of the long Latin sentence: “This view on the matter could have suited Ebion, who determines that Jesus is a bare man, merely of the seed of David”23. He attributes the following words to Tertullian: “Prophetis aliquo gloriosiorem must be taken as one of Tertul-

20. Jean-Pierre MAHÉ (ed.), Tertullien. La chair du Christ (SC 216), vol. 1, Paris: Cerf, 1975, p. 273 (see note 37 below for the French translation). 21. In a somewhat surprising way, Mahé refers to Lk 1.35 for Et ait mihi angelus qui in me loquebatur in 14.36-37 (see MAHÉ (ed.), Tertullien. La chair du Christ, p. 272, note h). As I will discuss, Mahé is right in keeping the imprecision of in aliquo Zacharia, because Tertul- lian is still reflecting the points of view of “Ebion” here. But Mahé does not seem to have seen a potential link to Zech 1.14 in 14.36-37, a link that has to be specified (see part 4). 22. See SKARSAUNE, “The Ebionites”, p. 431: the translation of aliquo is also missing here. Unfortunately, Skarsaune reproduces this incomplete translation, instead of returning to Evans’ edition and translation. 23. English translation of EVANS (ed.), Tertullian’s Treatise on the Incarnation, p. 51; quoted in part 1 above.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 229191 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 292 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41

lian’s ironical interjections. […] Gloriosior is an intentionally offensive word, indicating that if the Ebionite doctrine of Christ were true, then we should have to regard him as having said too much about himself”24. This interpretation leads him to three editorial choices in the Latin text: Poterit haec opinio Hebioni convenire qui nudum hominem et tantum ex semine David, id est non et dei filium, constituit Jesum — plane prophetis aliquo gloriosiorem — ut ita in illo angelum fuisse dicatur quemadmodum in aliquo Zacharia: nisi quod a Christo numquam est dictum, Et ait mihi angelus qui in me loquebatur25.

First, Evans edits the sentence with punctuation that puts a part of it between dashes (from plane to gloriosiorem) and then adds a “though”26 in the translation that is not present in the Latin text27. This addition in the translation shows, in my opinion, that Evans misreads the text here by sup- posing an interjection by Tertullian; I will provide evidence for this opinion in part 4 by demonstrating that plane prophetis aliquo gloriosiorem corresponds to an Ebionite opinion. Secondly, Evans gives preference to dicatur instead of edicat28, although edicat is better attested in the manuscript evi- dence29, and although Evans himself gives preference to edicat in his notes30. He justifies however the choice of dicatur because edicat — to claim, to affirm — seems to him “too strong a word”; at the same time, he remains

24. Ibid., p. 144. 25. Ibid., pp. 50-52. 26. Klijn and Reinink reinforce this effect further by adding a semi-colon and “although” in their translation: “This opinion could be very suitable for Ebion who asserts that Jesus is mere man and only of the seed of David, that means not also the Son of God; although he is obviously more glorious than the prophets — so as to say that an angel is in Him in the same way as Zechariah” (KLIJN, REININK, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, p. 109). Skarsaune follows their translation almost entirely, particularly on this point (see SKARSAUNE, “The Ebionites”, p. 431). 27. See EVANS (ed.), Tertullian’s Treatise on the Incarnation, p. 53; the complete English translation is given above in part 1. 28. See ibid., p. 52. 29. Edicat is the reading from the Cluny group manuscripts (including two manuscripts of the 11th century); dicatur is the reading of the Codex Trecenses, 12th century; the oldest manuscript, the Codex Agobardinus, 9th century, does not contain chapter 14, see EVANS (ed.), Tertullian’s Treatise on the Incarnation, pp. XXXII-XXXIII. Evans himself recognizes that “a very large number of the readings of Trecensis come from the hand of [the] editor”, and opposes Kroymann who gave priority to the Codex Trecenses when Codex Agobardinus was missing (ibid., p. XXXIV). Jean-Pierre Mahé also remains prudent about Codex Trecenses against Kroymann (see MAHÉ (ed.), Tertullien. La chair du Christ, vol. 1, pp. 172-179; Mahé offers a stemma p. 175, which links the Trecenses with the manuscripts of Cluny against the Agorbadinus). 30. EVANS (ed.), Tertullian’s Treatise on the Incarnation, p. 143: “If sequence of tenses is of any account, poterit is the correct form, with edicat following”; ibid., p. 144: “ut ita in illo angelum fuisse dicat (or edicat, or even dicatur) is apparently the right reading”.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 229292 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41 293

dissatisfied with dicatur because “the passive of dicere commonly introduces scriptural references, which is not the case here”31. This last remark confirms the fact that Evans does not understand in aliquo Zacharia as referring directly to a text (Zech 1.14), but rather to a character, which is correct with regard to the balance of in illo / in aliquo Zacharia. The reader remains yet dissatisfied with the explanations of Evans about the choice of dicatur, whether regarding the manuscript evidence or regarding the inadequate use of dicatur. If one gives preference to edicat — as Mahé does32 —, Tertullian is clearly underlining here that it is “Ebion” who claimed that an angel was in Jesus as in aliquo Zacharia. This point was not so clear for Evans who deemed edicat to be “too strong a word”. Thirdly, as I underlined above, Evans translates in aliquo Zacharia by “in Zechariah, for example”, which leads him to continue the sentence with a colon in order to justify the translation of aliquo by “for example”33.With this editing choice, Evans introduces a link between quemadmodum in aliquo Zacharia and Et ait mihi angelus qui in me loquebatur. However, this link contradicts his understanding of in aliquo Zacharia as a reference to a character rather than a text. So Evans provokes a confusion by adding a colon after in aliquo Zacharia, with the consequence that Klijn-Reinink and Skarsaune omit the aliquo altogether in their translations34. This omis- sion in the most recent English translations of the passage is the logical outcome of not seeking to understand more precisely what is at stake in the expression quemadmodum in aliquo Zacharia. Mahé’s translation — “as in a certain Zechariah” —is to be preferred, first because it is correct from the point of view of the Latin language; secondly, regarding the balance in illo / in aliquo Zacharia; thirdly, because Tertullian offers another similar example in De carne Christi 12.36: “not otherwise in himself [Christ] than in some Lazarus (non aliter in se quam in Lazaro aliquo)”35. Nonetheless, Mahé’s translation leads to another difficulty: why does not Tertullian seem to understand to which Zechariah “Ebion” is referring while the Latin Father uses just afterwards an expression that recalls Zech 1.14, Et ait mihi angelus qui in me loquebatur? If it is possible to elucidate this difficulty of sense and logic — as I will propose in part 4 —, Mahé’s translation has to be considered as the best one.

31. Ibid., p. 145. 32. See MAHÉ (ed.), Tertullien. La chair du Christ 14.39 (§5), vol. 1, p. 272. 33. See Evans’ translation given in part 1 above. 34. See KLIJN, REININK, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, p. 109; SKARSAUNE, “The Ebionites”, p. 431. 35. EVANS (ed.), Tertullian’s Treatise on the Incarnation, p. 46 for the Latin text; my English translation.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 229393 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 294 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41

To summarize my observations about Evan’s edition, I consider the three following editorial choices that he makes to be unsatisfactory: 1) to put plane prophetis aliquo gloriosiorem between dashes and to consider these words as Tertullian’s interjection; 2) to keep dicatur instead of edicat — and consequently to omit the clear reference to the opinion of “Ebion”; 3) to add a colon after in aliquo Zacharia as a means to reinforcing the translation of aliquo by “for example” — and to omit thereby the nuance of uncertainty in the expression. The French editor Mahé chooses a very different interpretation of the passage in the Sources chrétiennes series. He attributes the complete sentence, from poterat to in aliquo Zacharia, to Ebi- onite ideas such as transmitted by Tertullian, which leads him to different editorial choices: Poterat haec opinio Ebioni conuenire qui nudum hominem et tantum ex semine David, id est non et dei filium, constituit Jesum plane prophetis aliquid gloriosiorem, ut ita in illo angelum fuisse edicat quemadmodum in aliquo Zacharia. Nisi quod a Christo numquam est dictum, Et ait mihi angelus qui in me loque- batur36.

I propose the following English translation for the Latin text as edited and translated by Mahé: This opinion could have suited Ebion, who represents Jesus as a man, a mere man, a simple descendant of David’s race, who is then not simultaneously Son of God. He [Ebion] doubtless admits that he [Jesus] was more outstanding than the prophets and explains that an angel was in him as in a certain Zechariah. Except that Christ never said “And the angel that spoke in me said to me”37.

As may be noticed, Mahé does not put plane prophetis aliquid gloriosiorem between dashes and understands these words as the opinion of “Ebion”, as transmitted by Tertullian. First, this interpretation enables him to avoid adding a “though” or “although” in the translation, as Evans, Klijn-Reinink and Skarsaune have to. Secondly, the verb edicat does not seem “too strong” from this point of view and finds its place and meaning logically as representing the point of view of “Ebion”. Finally, Mahé does not need to put a colon after in aliquo Zacharia, because he does not translate aliquo by “for example”, but simply follows the Latin words (“in a

36. MAHÉ (ed.), Tertullien. La chair du Christ 14.36-41 (§5-6), vol. 1, pp. 270-272. 37. See MAHÉ (ed.), Tertullien. La chair du Christ, vol. 1, pp. 271-273: “Cette opinion aurait pu convenir à Ebion qui représente Jésus comme un homme, rien qu’un homme, un simple descendant de la race de David, qui n’est donc pas en même temps Fils de Dieu. Il convient sans doute de dire qu’il a fait plus de bruit que les prophètes et explique qu’un ange était en lui comme en un certain Zacharie. Á cela près que le Christ n’a jamais dit ‘Et l’ange qui parlait en moi me dit’”.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 229494 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41 295

certain Zechariah”). For Mahé, Tertullian’s point of view is found again from nisi quod. In this French translation, it is to be regretted only that Mahé does not transmit the Latin connection ut ita. If the movement of the Latin sentence is followed, what is balanced is, on the one hand, a Jesus mere man and more glorious than the other prophets and, on the other hand, the explication of this Christological model introduced by ut ita: an angel was in him38. When we compare Evans and Mahé’s editions and translations, the conclusion is clear. If we follow Mahé, it is possible to understand that, according to Tertullian, “Ebion” postulated an angelic inhabitation of a mere human Jesus. Mahé’s interpretation is also based on the reading of the entire chapter 14 of the De carne Christi, where he notices that Tertullian goes subtly from anti-Valentinian arguments (14.1-21) to anti-Ebionite ones (14.21-41). One has to read until 14.32 to get “the confirmation that, already from the second part of the §3, Tertullian uses ancient anti-Ebionite arguments”39. Mahé argues that the expression angelum in filio in 14.25 “supposes a kind of angelical inspiration which differs sensibly from the Valen- tinian formula, angelum gestare”40. In my opinion, the French editor reads the text much more carefully here than Klijn and Reinink, who define the issue as “Jesus was an angel”41: the issue is here “an angel in Jesus”, not “Jesus as an angel”. Moreover, Mahé points out and correctly articulates the differences and similarities between both Valentinian and Ebionite Christological perceptions such as transmitted by Tertullian. He allows us thus to understand why Tertullian associates Western Valentinians and Ebi- onites in this passage. But we touch here precisely on an important reason for the mistrust of scholarship with regard to Tertullian’s information about Ebionism. Is the Latin Father not mixing up Ebionite opinions with Gnostic opinions42, such as Western Valentinian opinions43? The following part will examine this question, before evaluating in part 4 exactly what Tertullian transmits about Ebionism.

38. I propose as French translation of the passage: “Cette opinion aurait pu convenir à Ebion qui fait de Jésus un simple homme, juste né de la semence de David — et non pas aussi fils de Dieu —, qui en quelque sorte a fait bien plus de bruit que les prophètes, puisqu’[Ebion] prétend qu’un ange était en lui comme en un certain Zacharie. Á cela près que le Christ n’a jamais dit: ‘Et l’ange qui parlait en moi me dit’”. 39. MAHÉ (ed.), Tertullien. La chair du Christ, vol. 2, p. 387; my English translation. 40. Ibid., vol. 2, p. 387. 41. See part 1 above. 42. See SKARSAUNE, “The Ebionites”, p. 431; but Skarsaune speaks imprecisely and generally about “Gnostics”. 43. See MAHÉ (ed.), Tertullien. La chair du Christ, vol. 2, p. 384.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 229595 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 296 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41

3. An Angelic Inhabitation in Jesus, an Ebionite Point of View?

3.1. Western Valentinian and Ebionite Points of View

The relationship between Ebionism and Gnosticism is a recurrent difficulty in research. Origen associates both concepts, which causes some surprise to Alain Le Boulluec who nevertheless concedes that “although his- torically difficult to explain, doctrinal contamination could have existed, situated at the frontier between Ebionism and Gnosticism”44. Such a “contamination” exists already by the time of Irenaeus45, the first author who mentions the name “Ebionites”. Simon Mimouni remains prudent about the evaluation of such “confusions”46 between Ebionites and Gnostics, and indicates that Antonio Orbe tried to set both Christologies in parallel47, but he does not pursue the discussion48. The core of the problem is the fact that we do not have any access to Ebionite sources or opinions before or without such Gnostic “contaminations” or “confusions”. Regarding this issue, our text has the advantage of showing that Tertullian makes a precise connection between Western Valentinianism and Ebionism with respect to angelic Christology. According Tertullian’s perception, both groups are similar regarding the concept of the inhabitation of Jesus by an angel, but they understand the association between Jesus and this angel differently. According to Mahé, Valentinian Gnosis views this angelic Christology not only as a question of essence, but also as a “mystic of identification”: “in the Valentinian doctrine, angels are both around Christ and in Christ, who is himself the angel of the Pleroma”49. Such a concept can be read in Clem- ent of Alexandria’s Epitome of Theodotus 35.1, as well as in Tertullian’s De carne Christi 14.1-4. Valentinians consider Jesus to be descended himself from the Plerom in order to assume the psychic Christ in the region of the Place50. On the contrary, the Ebionites distinguish between Jesus born of Mary and Joseph, and an angelic inhabitation of the man Jesus, as we read in De carne Christi 14.35 (in illo angelum fuisse), according to Tertul- lian.

44. Alain LE BOULLUEC, La notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque. IIe-IIIe siècles, vol. 2, Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1985, p. 527, note 305; my English translation. 45. See for example MIMOUNI, Le judéo-christianisme ancien, p. 122. 46. See ibid., p. 129. 47. See Antonio ORBE, “Errores de los ebionitas (Analisis de Ireneo, Adversus haereses 5.1,3)”, Marianum 41 (1979), pp. 147-170. 48. MIMOUNI, Le judéo-christianisme ancien, p. 128. 49. MAHÉ (éd.), Tertullien. La Chair du Christ, vol. 2, p. 385; my English translation. 50. See CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Epitome of Theodotus 59,2-3.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 229696 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41 297

Another text offers a similar point of view. It is a passage of Epiphanius’ Panarion, according to which the Ebionites consider Christ to be one of the seven created archangels and who “comes to Jesus” at his baptism: And they say that this is why Jesus was begotten of the seed of a man and chosen, and thus named Son of God by election, after the Christ who had come to him from on high in the form of a dove. But they say he is not begotten of God the Father, but was created as one of the archangels, and that he is ruler both of angels and of all creatures of Almighty; and he came and instructed us51.

Skarsaune does not comment specifically on Epiphanius’ text, which he classified under the category of “an adoptionist Christology attributed to the Ebionites by Irenaeus and his followers”52. Klijn and Reinink consider that “in [Panarion] 30.16,4, we read that Jesus was created as one of the archangels, and that he reigns over all creation. This idea is taken from the ‘Grundschrift’” of the Pseudo-Clementine writings53. In the same way as for Tertullian54, Klijn and Reinink do not do justice to what Epiphanius says: the question here is not if Jesus was created as an archangel, but rather whether the human Jesus was inhabited by a Christ archangel55. What can help us to pay serious attention to Epiphanius’ statement is the fact that the Greek Father himself cannot accept as plausible such a perception of Ebi- onite Christology, a Jesus mere man with an angelic inhabitation. Because he considers this concept as not plausible, Epiphanius decides to put both ideas into chronological order. He is in fact the first “scholar” to propose that the earliest Ebionite Christology was simply a human one, and that the followers of “Ebion” then added the feature of an angelic inhabitation56. It would seem that present scholarship is still under the influence of Epiphan- ius’ chronological reconstruction by postulating an original Ebionite perception of Jesus without a mode of angelic inhabitation57.

51. EPIPHANIUS, Panarion 30.16,3-4 (Frank WILLIAMS (trans.), Epiphanius. The Panarion. Book I (Nag Hammadi Studies and Manichean Studies 35), vol. 1, Leiden / New York / Köln: Brill, 19972, p. 132. 52. SKARSAUNE, “The Ebionites”, p. 452. 53. KLIJN, REININK, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, p. 34. 54. See part 1 above. 55. The ancient Grundschrift of the Pseudo-Clementine writings proposes a quite similar view of the true Prophet as archangel (see notably Recognitions 1.32,4-1.33,1), but it remains at the moment impossible to link definitively this Grundschrift to what the Patristic authors call “Ebionites” from Irenaeus onwards. 56. See EPIPHANIUS, Panarion 30.34,6. 57. See for example the summary of Ebionite Christology by SKARSAUNE, “The Ebionites”, p. 462: “Jesus was of David’s seed through his father Joseph, and hence eligible to be the Messiah”. Some authors postulate however an angelic inhabitation of Jesus in Ebionism, see

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 229797 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 298 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41

We can clearly read with Jean-Pierre Mahé such an Ebionite Christo- logical model in the information transmitted by Tertullian: Ebionite Chris- tology does not conceive of a Jesus without a link to the “divine sphere”, but assumes a dualistic model of a human inhabited by an angel, a model of prophetic and angelic inspiration. The main difference between Valentinian and Ebionite Christologies stands between angelum gestare et angelum in illo, as Mahé underlines58: in the Valentinian model, the angelic inhabitation is permanent, since Jesus descends from the Plerom and assumes the psychic Christ until his death59. The angelum in illo model supposes rather an intermittent angelic inhabitation of Jesus, as I will develop in point 3.2. In sum, Valentinian and Ebionite Christologies are similar enough to be compared, but also sufficiently different to be distinguished. That allows us to understand the indistinct transition that Tertullian makes in the De carne Christi 14.1-21 and 14.21-41 between both concepts, as well as the Gnostic “contamination” of Ebionite ideas in Irenaeus and Origen60.

3.2. When Ebionite ideas were not yet others’ ideas: Jesus’ angelic inhabitation as a concept accepted by the “Poor”

Is it possible to say something about Ebionism before the Patristic statements? As I underlined above, the earliest mentions of “Ebionism” are already marked by comparisons with Gnosticism. If we keep in mind that cultural forgetting can lead authors to construct counter-images, as Ass- mann asserts61, we realize that we have only echoes and testimonies about Ebionism as perceived as the “others”. It should be noted, however, that such ideas as an inhabitation of Jesus by an archangel belonging to the seven Protoctists exist very early in the history of Christianity’s origins, and have not always been only the ideas of “others”, coming from a deter- mined group that can be named. I will defend this point of view with two kinds of arguments: first by using the monograph of Pamela Kinlaw about the Gospel of John and the possession by the Holy Spirit; secondly, by looking for ancient data about the figure of the seven Protoctists in very early Christianity.

for example Charles A. GIESCHEN, “The Seven Pillars of the World: Ideal Figure Lists in the Christology of the Pseudo-Clementines”, JSP 12 (1994), pp. 47-82 (here pp. 75-76); Michael GOULDER, “Hebrews and the Ebionites”, NTS 49 (2003), p. 393-406 (here p. 4-5). 58. See MAHÉ (ed.), Tertullien. La chair du Christ, vol. 2, p. 387, quoted above. 59. See CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Epitome of Theodotus 61.1-8. 60. See MIMOUNI, Le judéo-christianisme, pp. 122-128. 61. See part 1 above.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 229898 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41 299

In a very interesting way, Pamela Kinlaw has studied the topic of an intermittent possession of Jesus in connection with the figure of the opponents in the Gospel of John, a gospel too often read within an orthodox framework62. For Kinlaw, the Johannine author shares with his opponents the idea of a possession of Jesus by the Spirit or by the Logos at his baptism63; but he insists on the fact that the Holy Spirit stays on Jesus from the time of his baptism (Jn 1.32: ∂meínen)64, in order to affirm a permanent possession of Jesus. Kinlaw characterizes this permanent possession as “indwelling”65. She argues that the opposite model of the intermittent possession of Jesus offers good probabilities to have been an Ebionite model66, a point that I will reformulate somewhat differently below. The framework of Kinlaw’s hypothesis seems to me notably useful for reading Jn 12.29: “The crowd standing there heard it and said that it was thunder. Others said, ‘An angel has spoken to him’”. If these alleged “others” are to be considered as opponents who view Jesus as intermittently possessed by an angel/spirit67, the first part of the verse allows us to connect this angelic figure with the Protoctists: in Rev 10.3-4 the seven archangels are called the “seven Thunders”, whose message must be kept secret. The study of the figure of the seven Protoctists and their early Christian reappraisals confirms the plausibility of an early concept of the angelic inhabitation of Jesus. As François Sagnard summarizes in his commentary on the Epitome of Theodotus 10.3-4, the “Protoctists” or “First-Born” are “seven superior spirits who have been created from the beginning, with all their perfection, so in such an immutable and perfect essence […]. They are like the ‘high priests’ of the archangels. […] The origin of these ‘Protoctists’ is an ancient Jewish tradition”68. Strack and Billerbeck already presented this ancient Jewish tradition by referring to 1 Enoch 20 or Tobit 12.15, TLev 8.2, and to Targ Jer 1Deut 34.6, and even to Rev 8.2 or Lk 1.19, where the expression “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God” could also refer to the Protoctists69. Recently, Bogdan Bucur added the references of 1 Enoch

62. Pamela KINLAW, The Christ is Jesus. Metamorphosis, Possession and Johannine Chris- tology (Academia Biblica 18), Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005, pp. 110 and 128. 63. See ibid., p. 179. 64. See ibid., p. 128; Kinlaw compares Jn 1.32 with the opposite conception in the Gospel of the Ebionites (EPIPHANIUS, Panarion 30.13,7). 65. See KINLAW, The Christ is Jesus, p. 61. 66. See ibid., p. 128. 67. It is possible to speak about angel and spirit with reference to the seven Protoctists, as the quotation of François Sagnard shows in the next paragraph. 68. François SAGNARD (ed.), Clément d’Alexandrie. Extraits de Théodote (SC 23), Paris: Cerf, 1970, p. 77, note 2; my English translation. 69. See H. L. STRACK – P. BILLERBECK (eds.), Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Tal- mud und Midrasch, vol. 3, München: C. H. Beck, 1926, pp. 805-806.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 229999 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 300 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41

90.21, or 3 Enoch 10.2-6, or the mention of the figure of Metatron in 3 Enoch to this list, and underlined that such angelic speculations are rooted in Second Temple Judaism70. For him, «Revelation illustrates the continu- ation in early Christianity of the Second Temple tradition about the seven principal angels and its reworking in the service of pneumatology» (see Rev 1.4; 3.1; 4.5; 5.6; 8.2)71. It is only by way of allusion, however, that the Protoctists could be present in the New Testament in Lk 1.19, Jn 12.29, Rev 8.2, or Rev 10.3-4. Nevertheless, their early influence on Christian or Judeo- Christian communities is confirmed in texts that are quite different from those that have been included in the canon, such as the not yet translated De centesima (Pseudo-Cyprian) or the Shepherd of Hermas. Neither texts mention Christ as superior to the seven Protoctists — as Theodotus and Clement of Alexandria do72 —, but include Christ among them (De centesima 219- 220) or else identify the Verb with Michael (HermSim. 8.3,3).

The example of the Shepherd of Hermas is particularly interesting, because the history of Christianity has viewed it as a Patristic writing even though it offers a quite distinct Christology, a point that was a problem for, for example, Jean Daniélou73. According to Kim Haines-Eitzen, Hermas was written by a non-professional scribe who could write authoritative texts while being at the same time close to the leaders of the Christian community of Rome74. On the basis of this view, it may be proposed that this text represents a literature of compromise: it wishes to maintain sociological and ecclesial links between the majority community and a group that integrates the figure of the Protoctists into its spirituality. The author shows his respect for the majority community by never clearly presenting the Son as the sev- enth Protoctist archangel and by prudently stopping the count at “six” archangels; at the same time, however, the name of Jesus is never written in Hermas, while Michael is identified with the Verb, even if only briefly (HermSim. 8.3,3). The point of the treatise is ethical: it is possible to achieve

70. See Bogdan BUCUR, “The ‘Other Clement’ of Alexandria: Cosmic Hierarchy and Inte- riorized Apocalypticism”, Vigiliae Christianae 60 (2006), pp. 251-268, here p. 258. 71. Bogdan BUCUR, “Hierarchy, Prophecy, and the Angelomorphic Spirit: A Contribution to the Study of the Book of Revelation’s Wirkungsgeschichte”, JBL 127/1 (2008), pp. 173- 194, here p. 194. 72. See Theodotus in CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Epitome of Theodotus 10.3-4; and CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Eclogae 51-53 for example. 73. See Jean DANIÉLOU, “Trinité et angélologie dans la théologie judéo-chrétienne”, RSR 45 (1957), pp. 5-41; here pp. 12-13. 74. Kim HAINES-EITZEN, Guardians of Letters. Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 6.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 330000 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41 301

repentance for a second time (HermMan. 4.3). By subordinating the Chris- tological definition to a moral preoccupation, the author allowed the figures of the first created archangels to be expressed, including reverence for Michael’s figure. Written before Irenaeus’ statements about the Ebionites, Hermas has no reason to stigmatize the vision of a Christ included in the Protoctists, because it probably shares this point of view. Such ideas have not always been the ideas of “others” in early Christian communities. If this analysis is correct, scholarship will have to question again what is meant by the use of the term “Ebionites”, a term linked with Patristic polemics since its first occurrences. I suggest that two distinct terms be used to distinguish between two historical steps. The first step concerns the moment when the Ebionite ideas were still part and parcel of the thinking of the diverse Christian communities; the second step starts from the moment when the Ebionite ideas were perceived only as the ideas of others. In consequence, I propose to speak about the “Poor” when referring to Ebionite ideas before they were considered as the ideas of others and as outsider concepts by the Patristic authors. This proposal seeks to offer a new approach to what is recognized as a recurrent difficulty in research75. Besides, it is based on the fact that behind the term “Ebionite”, several scholars agree in recognizing an honorific appellation given by the group to itself and rooted in the Hebrew language (see Grappe, Bauckham, Skarsaune for example)76. The articulation between the “Poor” (representing Ebionite ideas before their exclusion from the majority of Christian communities) and the “Ebionites” (representing Ebionite ideas after this exclusion) is of course not easy to apply, but offers some heuristic openings. For example, regarding Kinlaw’s analysis of the Gospel of John, it is probably anachro- nistic to compare Johannine opponents with the Irenaen Ebionites. It is more appropriate to consider that a movement of the Poor was promoting in the community the idea of an intermittent spiritual/angelic inhabitation of Jesus: if Kinlaw is right, the Gospel of John attests the moment at which such ideas became suspect for the majority of the community. In the next part of this paper, I will use the distinction Poor/Ebionites to interpret the information about this movement coming from De carne Christi 14.

75. For example, Oskar Skarsaune states that he continues to use the term “Ebionite”, “for the sake of convenience and clarity” (SKARSAUNE, “The Ebionites”, p. 423). 76. See Christian GRAPPE, D’un Temple à l’autre (EHPhR 71), Paris: PUF, 1992, pp. 126- 127; Richard BAUCKHAM, “The Origin of the Ebionites”, in Peter J. TOMSON, Doris LAMBERS- PETRY (eds), The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1. Reihe 158), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003, pp. 162-181 (here pp. 178-180); SKARSAUNE, “The Ebionites”, p. 427.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 330101 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 302 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41

4. Back to Tertullian’s Text: De Carne Christi 14 and Zechariah 1 LXX

In part 2 above, we saw that the expression in aliquo Zacharia in De carne Christi 14.35 means “in a certain Zechariah”, and does not refer directly to the prophet Zechariah, but to an indeterminate character; the subsequent question was: why does Tertullian speak about a certain Zecha- riah, when immediately afterwards he uses words evoking Zech 1.14 (“And the angel that spoke in me said to me”)? The following hypothesis may be made in order to explain this apparent contradiction: Tertullian was able to read an Ebionite text, which evoked the figure of a Zechariah, and which affirmed that Christ said “And the angel that spoke in me said to me” and “Thus said the Lord”, without any other precise link to Zechariah 1. Tertul- lian is attempting to understand the Ebionite text that he is reading, one that contains certain elements that are strange to him, such as the mention of a Zechariah whom he has difficulty in identifying. This hypothesis can be defended first, by demonstrating that Tertullian had access to a specific Ebionite written text (first step). An explanation as to why Tertullian did not relate this “certain Zechariah” to the figure of the prophet Zechariah can then be suggested (second step). Finally, it can be shown that De carne Christi 14.32-38 provides access to authentic Ebionite ideas and not just to Tertullian’s understanding (third step). In setting out these steps, I will need to have recourse to the dual terminology “Poor” / “Ebionites”, as stated in part 3. First step: Does Tertullian allude in De carne Christi 14 to a written Ebionite text, and not to information derived either from direct contact with Ebionism or from some other apologetic writing? First, nothing in Tertul- lian’s work shows that he could have had direct access to “Ebionism”. He focuses on the alleged founder of the movement, a so-called “Ebion”, which indicates his sense of temporal distance from this movement77. Second, such an Ebionite tradition is not transmitted by any other earlier apologetic author known to us. Skarsaune makes the supposition that “Tertullian might have known Irenaen works not known to us”78. But if Irenaeus clearly mentioned somewhere that the Ebionites considered Jesus to have been inhabited by an angel (angelum in illo), it would be very strange for him not to have specified it in AdvHaer. Consequently, if Tertullian did not inherit this idea directly from the Ebionites or from an apologetic writing, the last possibility

77. This point is confirmed by De carne Christi 24: Tertullian believes that the evangelist John answered to “Ebion” in Jn 1.13 (mentioned by SKARSAUNE, “The Ebionites”, p. 431). 78. SKARSAUNE, “The Ebionites”, p. 431.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 330202 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41 303

is that he read it himself in an Ebionite text. This hypothesis is confirmed by two elements in our passage: first, Tertullian asserts that he does not agree that Christ said “And the angel that spoke in me said to me” and “Thus said the Lord”. His disagreement shows that he reads both elements as affirmed in the alleged text. Secondly, he is not able to fully understand to what exactly this Ebionite text refers, as the expression “in a certain Zechariah” underlines. Moreover, the second step will show that we have traces of one or more lost apocryphal texts about a character called Zecha- riah. Second step: Why does Tertullian not connect in aliquo Zacharia to the character of the prophet Zechariah? When Tertullian mentions the expressions “And the angel that spoke in me said to me” and “Thus said the Lord” as being related to Christ according to the Ebionite point of view, he does not indicate that both expressions are present and repeated in the first chapter of Zechariah according to the Septuagint. The Greek version of Zechariah insists on the angelic inhabitation of the prophet with the expression kaì e˝pen próv me ö ãggelov ö lal¬n ên êmoí, that occurs not only in Zech 1.14, but three times in the first chapter (Zech 1.9,14,17 LXX); the Greek translation of Zechariah reads four times more the expression ö ãggelov ö lal¬n ên êmoí (Zech 1.13; 2.2,7; 4.1 LXX). The expression “Thus said the Lord” appears very often in the book of Zechariah and three times in the first chapter (Zech 1.3,4,16)79. It is thus clear that there exist real links between what Tertullian transmits concerning “Ebion” and the book of Zechariah, not only with one verse (Zech 1.14) but with the entire first chapter, a link that will be explored in the third step. However, Tertullian does not connect both expressions together as coming from a single intertextual reference and, moreover, offers rather a general view about “Thus said the Lord” by underlining that it is a “habitual expression of all the prophets” (De carne 14.37): he does not relate explicitly these expressions to Zechariah 1. Consequently, I propose to understand that, if he does not identify in aliquo Zacharia with the prophet Zechariah, it is because he reads an Ebionite text that takes, essentially from Zechariah 1, expressions that are marks of angelic and prophetic inspiration to attribute them to Jesus. Furthermore, Tertullian’s uncertainty about Zechariah’s identity becomes understandable if account is taken of the confusion existing between diverse figures of “Zechariah”, and their superimposition upon one another, from the end of the first century C.E. in Jewish and early Christian stories. This is a relatively complicated issue, which requires a digression within this second step.

79. See also Zech 2.9,10,14; 3.9,10; 5.4; 8.6,11,17; 10.12; 11.6; 12.1,4; 13.2,7,8 LXX.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 330303 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 304 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41

Jewish and early Christian stories, sharing the motif of Zechariah’s murder in the Temple, testify to some confusions or superimpositions between diverse “Zechariahs”, as Jean-Daniel Dubois summarized in an article following an earlier monograph on the topic80. On the Jewish side, stories link the post-Exilic prophet Zechariah (Zech 1.1), Isaiah’s witness (Isa 8.2) and the prophet Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 24 on the basis of the motif of the blood of the prophet spilt in the Temple; this blood shouts for vengeance and helps explain the destruction of the Temple81 (see, for example, in the Babylonian Talmud B. Gittin 57 a-b and in the Jerusalem Talmud J. Ta‘anith IV.5)82. According to Dubois, such traditions could go back to the second century C.E. or even to the end of the first century C.E.83. A Jewish apocryphal text could have elaborated such motifs: for example Sozomenus, in his Ecclesiastical History 9.17, alludes in the fifth century C.E. to an old Jewish and non canonical text that develops the story of 2 Chronicles 2484. On the Christian side, stories of the death in the Temple of various Zecha- riah characters are further enriched by Luke’s story of Zechariah, father of John the Baptist. Mt 23.35 provides evidence of such a conflation: the mention of “Zechariah, son of Barachiah” (Mt 23.35), “murdered between the temple and the altar”, is simply rendered by “Zechariah” in Lk 11.51, but by “Zechariah, son of Jehoida” in the Gospel of the Nazareans, according to Jerome85. As the post-exilic prophet Zechariah is not known to have been slain in the Temple, the Gospel of the Nazareans prefers here to follow the tradition of Zechariah, son of Jehoida, in accordance with the Hebrew text of 2 Chr 24.20-22. The Septuagint relates this episode, however, to “Azarias, son of Yehoyada”, not to a “Zechariah”. Accordingly, Origen follows some “apocryphal traditions” — as he says himself — and links Mt 23.35 and

80. See Jean-Daniel DUBOIS, “La mort de Zacharie: mémoire juive et mémoire chréti- enne”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes 40 (1994), pp. 23-38; Jean-Daniel DUBOIS, Études sur l’apocryphe de Zacharie et sur les traditions concernant la mort de Zacharie, Paris: F. Reder, 1978. Cf. the earlier work of Sheldon H. BLANK, “The Death of Zechariah in Rab- binic Literature”, Hebrew Union College Annual 12 (1937-1938), pp. 327-346. 81. See DUBOIS, “La mort de Zacharie”, p. 36. We know, thanks to Josephus, of another “Zechariah, son of Baris”, slain in the Temple just before 70 C.E. (see B. J. 4.343), but Dubois sets aside this reference because this Zechariah is not linked with anything “prophetic” (see DUBOIS, Études sur l’apocryphe de Zacharie, p. 129). For a link between Josephus’ passage and early Christian stories, see Yaron Z. ELIAV, “The Tomb of James, Brother of Jesus, as Locus Memoriae”, Harvard Theological Review 97:1 (2004), pp. 33-59; here p. 54. 82. For a complete study about and list of Jewish texts referring to Zechariah’s blood in the Temple, see DUBOIS, Études sur l’apocryphe de Zacharie, pp. 1-157 and pp. 308-322. 83. See DUBOIS, Études sur l’apocryphe de Zacharie, p. 304. 84. See DUBOIS, “La mort de Zacharie”, pp. 29-30. 85. See JEROME, Comm. Matt. on 23.35.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 330404 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41 305

Lk 11.51 to Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, murdered in the Tem- ple, next to the altar (see Comm. Mt 10.18; Letter to Africanus 14)86. Such a tradition is also known, for example, to the Protoevangelium of James 22-24, or to Tertullian (Scorpiace 8.3) or to the Garshunic New Life of John the Baptist87. With regard to the importance of such traditions, Jean-Daniel Dubois supposes that Lk 11.51 speaks simply about “Zechariah” — and not about “Zechariah, son of Barachiah” —, because it is a specific reference to Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist88. However, no textual element allows us to determine definitively which “Zechariah” is implied in Lk 11.51: the question remains open. A superimposition of diverse Zechariahs in early Christian memory is attested also in other texts, for example in the various versions of The Life of the Prophets 23.189, or in the titles of a lost Apocryphon of Zechariah. As Albert-Marie Denis points out, the recent editions of Hennecke-Schneemelch- er’s New Testament Apocrypha no longer mention such an apocryphon but it was still included in the fourth German edition (1971)90. A careful consideration of all the elements gathered together by Jean-Daniel Dubois91 — who develops Alfred Berendts’ hypothesis92 — shows that the question of apocryphal texts linked to “Zechariah” deserves to be brought back into the next German revised edition of New Testament Apocrypha by Christoph Markchies and Jens Schröter, Antike Christliche Apokryphen93. A distinction needs to be made between two groups of Christian apocryphal texts concerning Zechariah. The most recent group concerns legends about the discovery

86. See DUBOIS, “La mort de Zacharie”, pp. 32-36. 87. Alphonse MINGANA (ed.), “A New Life of John the Baptist”, Woodbrooke Studies 1 (1927), pp. 234-260; here p. 242. 88. See DUBOIS, “La mort de Zacharie”, p. 23. 89. See Pierre GEOLTRAIN, Jean-Daniel KAESTLI (ed.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens 2 (Bib- liothèque de la Pléiade), Paris: Gallimard, 2005, p. 451, note on 23.1. 90. Albert-Marie DENIS et al. (ed.), Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-hellénis- tique, II, Pseudépigraphes de l’Ancien Testament, Turnhout: Brepols, 2001, p. 1270, note 50: Denis refers to Edgar HENNECKE, Wilhelm SCHNEEMELCHER (ed.), Neutestamentliche Apokry- phen, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, vol. 2, 19714, p. 534. 91. See note 80 above. 92. Alexander BERENDTS, Studien über Zacharias-Apocryphen und Zacharias-Legenden, Leipzig: A. Deichert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung (Georg Böhme), 1895; ID., Die handschrift- liche Überlieferung des Zacharias- und Johannes-Apokryphen (T. U. 26/3), Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1904. For a history of the research, see DUBOIS, “La mort de Zacharie:”, pp. 31-32; Stéphane VERHELST, “L’Apocalypse de Zacharie, Siméon et Jacques”, RB 105 (1998/1), pp. 81-104 (here p. 99, note 97 and 98); DENIS et al. (ed.), Introduction à la lit- térature religieuse judéo-hellénistique, vol. 2, p. 1270, note 50. 93. See Christoph MARKCHIES, Jens SCHRÖTER, Antike Christliche Apokryphen: Neubear- beitung von Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Überset- zung, 6. Auflage, Tübingen: Mohr Siebck, 1990.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 330505 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 306 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41

of Zechariah’s relics — those of Zechariah, father of John the Baptist. We possess a Georgian Revelation of Zechariah, Symeon and James, probably based on a Greek text of the fourth century C.E.94, which narrates the discovery of such relics95. The recent reading of a Greek inscription on a tomb in Josaphat Valley allows us to understand better all the stories that have arisen concerning Zechariah’s tomb96. A second and earlier group of texts concerns apocryphal developments about the life of Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, such as the Genna Marias —alluded to by Epiphanius–, or the Slavonic Apocryphon of Zechariah translated in German by Ber- endts97. A number of texts about Zechariah the father of John the Baptist must have existed, since we have very different explanations about Zecha- riah’s murder: because he announced the messiah (see Jerome, Comm. Mt 23.35); because he protected Maria and her child (see Origen, Comm. Mt 10.18); because he kept secret the refuge of John the Baptist and Elisabeth (Protoevangelium of James 23,1); because he said he saw a donkey in the Holy of Holies (Genna Marias, Epiphanius, Panarion 26,12,3). There are three witnesses to titles or mentions of an Apocryphon of Zechariah used by Christians98: a Revelation of Zechariah in the Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books (7th century C.E.), which stands among the apocryphal texts between the Revelation of Sophonia and the Revelation of Ezra99; a text of 500 lines attributed to “Zechariah, father of John” among the apocrypha of the Old Testament in the Stichometry of Nicephorus (9th century C.E.)100; and a text attributed to “Zechariah, father of John” among the apocrypha of the Old Testament in the Synopsis of Athanasius (not before the 6th century C.E.)101. As I have already underlined, following

94. See DENIS et al. (ed.), Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-hellénistique, vol. 2, p. 1271. 95. Known since the beginning of the 20th century C.E., this revelation was translated into a modern language for the first time in 1998 by Stéphane Verhelst (VERHELST, “L’Apocalypse de Zacharie, Siméon et Jacques”). For further developments, see Stéphane VERHELST, “Trois remarques sur la Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana et le christianisme”, in Le judéo-christianisme dans tous ses états. Actes du Colloque de Jérusalem 6-10 juillet 1998 (Lectio Divina. Hors Série), Simon MIMOUNI, Francis Stanley JONES (ed.), Paris: Cerf, 2001, pp. 366-380. 96. Émile PUECH, Joe ZIAS, “Le tombeau de Zacharie et Siméon au monument funéraire dit d’Absalom dans la vallée de Josaphat”, RB 110 (2003), pp. 321-335; ID., “Le tombeau de Siméon et Zacharie dans la vallée de Josaphat”, RB 111 (2004), pp. 563-577. 97. See EPIPHANIUS, Panarion 26.12,1-4; BERENDTS, Studien über Zacharias-Apocryphen, pp. 71-80. 98. For a detailled presentation of these occurrences, see DUBOIS, “La mort de Zacharie”, pp. 24-27. 99. See Wilhelm SCHNEEMELCHER (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1, R. McL. WILSON (trans.), Louisville / London: John Knox Press, 20032, p. 42. 100. See SCHNEEMELCHER (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1, p. 41. 101. See Theodor ZAHN, Evangelia apocrypha, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 18762, p. 317.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 330606 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41 307

Dubois, Origen, Jerome and Epiphanius also testify to the existence of various kinds of Apocrypha of Zechariah. Dubois adds a further mention of “words” of Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, in a text attributed with relatively large uncertainty102 to Origen in his commentary on Ephesians 4.27103; and, finally, the testimony of an Ethiopian text, The Book of the Mysteries of the Heavens and the Earth. This text mentions an Apocryphon of Zechariah among other apocrypha of the Old Testament and conflates the figures of Zechariah the prophet and Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, considering both to be “son of Barachiah”104. Taking account of all these data involving traces of apocryphal texts related to Zechariah, Dubois concludes that an ancient Christian Apocryphon of Zechariah could have been written between 70 and 135 C.E. He adds: since Zechariah’s death is sometimes associated with the content of his visions, it would be surprising if these visions corresponded to the biblical book of Zechariah; they would rather refer to the marvelous secrets about the destruction of the Temple and the coming of the Messiah such as could have been found in a Jewish apocryphon of Zechariah105.

This overview about the Zechariah traditions confirms that, if Tertullian does not understand about which Zechariah the Ebionite text speaks, it is probably because this text superimposes diverse memories of “Zechariah” and differs significantly from the biblical Zechariah even though it uses expressions from Zechariah 1 LXX. The following scenario may be proposed to explain such a phenomenon and to gain a better understanding of which kind of Ebionite text Tertullian read. Before the destruction of the Temple, the Poor — still integrated among the various early Christian communities — developed a reading of Zechariah 1–2 in conjunction with a model of angelic inhabitation applied to Jesus. Only the connection with a model of angelic inhabitation is original to the Poor here: the Gospel of Mark testifies to a very ancient Christian use of the biblical Zechariah, for example on the Mount of Olives (Mk 14.27). After the destruction of the Temple, this reading of the Poor evolved into a more mystical model, one

102. See the evaluation of DUBOIS, “La mort de Zacharie”, p. 28. 103. See ORIGEN, Commentary on Ephesians 4.27, fragment 20 (edited in J.A.F. GREGG, “Documents: The Commentary of Origen upon the Epistle to the Ephesians: III”, Journal of Theological Studies 3 (1902), p. 554: katà gàr tòn patéra ’Iwánnou Haxarían êpì tà klímata t±v cux±v êpiskjno⁄ ö Satan¢v). 104. See E. A. Wallis BUDGE (ed.), The Book of the Mysteries of the Heavens and the Earth and Other Works of Bakhayla Mîkâ’êl (Zôsîmâs); the Ethiopic Texts Edited from the Unique Manuscript (Éth. 37 Peiresc) in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1935, pp. 107ff. Mentioned and commented on by DUBOIS, “La mort de Zacharie”, p. 30. 105. Jean-Daniel DUBOIS, Études sur l’apocryphe de Zacharie et sur les traditions concernant la mort de Zacharie, Paris: F. Reder, 1978, p. 307; my English translation.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 330707 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 308 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41

that offered more and more space for prophetic interpretation in the community. Rejected by the main body of Christianity, the Poor became the Ebionites in the eyes of the majority of Christians and they used an apocryphon of Zechariah centered on Jesus, with only a few echoes from the biblical book of Zechariah and conflating diverse figures of “Zechariah”. If it were such an apocryphal text that Tertullian read, he would not have been able to understand which Zechariah it concerned. Third step: Authentic Ebionite ideas can be accessed in De carne Christi 14.32-38, and not only Tertullian’s misconceptions. The Ebionite text read by Tertullian offered echoes from a Poor interpretation of Zechariah 1 LXX. The plausibility of such an interpretation is confirmed by three features in Zechariah 1 that fit with what we know about Ebionite opinions. First, the attachment to Jerusalem, clearly mentioned in Zech 1.17 LXX, is marked in Ebionism by a prayer spoken facing Jerusalem106, a city that the Ebionites “adore” according to Irenaeus107. Secondly, the attribution to Jesus of words coming from the biblical Zechariah in the text read by Tertullian fits with the “curious (curiosus) exposition” of the prophecies by the Ebionites, according to Irenaeus108. The concept of an angelic inhabitation of Jesus could have justified the reappraisal of the model of Zechariah 1, and also the freedom to go beyond this model. The tradition of an angelic inspiration of Jesus, whose birth was in the milieu of the Poor, allows one sufficient space for a free reinterpretation of the Scriptures, such as attributed to the Ebionites by Irenaeus and also by Epiphanius. The latter reproaches the Ebionites for selecting passages in the Pentateuch and the prophets, by asserting “Christ revealed it to me”109. This scenario from an ancient Chris- tology based on an angelic inhabitation of Jesus and leading to a free interpretation of the prophecies allows us to come back to the words plane prophetis aliquid gloriosiorem in De carne Christi 14.34. Gloriosior should not be considered here to be an “offensive word” chosen by Tertullian — as Evans proposed110 —, but to be an Ebionite opinion transmitted by Tertul- lian. Plane prophetis aliquid gloriosiorem corresponds to the concept of Jesus as the “True Prophet”111 as transmitted by Epiphanius about the Ebi- onites. We are now able to be more affirmative than Skarsaune when he says

106. See Simon MIMOUNI, Les chrétiens d’origine juive dans l’Antiquité (Présences du judaïsme), Paris: Albin Michel, 2004, p. 169; SKARSAUNE, “The Ebionites”, p. 462. 107. See IRENAEUS, Adversus Haereses 1.26,2. 108. See ibid. 1.26,2. 109. See EPIPHANIUS, Panarion 30.18,4-9; part. 30.18,9. 110. See part 2 above. 111. See EPIPHANIUS, Panarion 30.18,5.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 330808 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41 309

that Tertullian “seems to attest an Ebionite Christology of the end-time- prophet type”112. The expression plane prophetis aliquid gloriosiorem transmits some information about Ebionite Christology, or — more simply — about a perception of Jesus that has very ancient roots. Thirdly, the reading of Zechariah 1 LXX from the point of view of the Poor demonstrates the antiquity of such a Christological conception, because Zechariah 1 leads back to the topic of the first created archangels with the figure of Michael. Darrell Hannah, looking for the itinerary of the malach YHWH in the Old Testament, underlines that a rupture arises with the books of Zechariah and Daniel concerning the image of the angel messenger. The book of Daniel is for example the first one to give a name to the angels. In Zechariah, the [malach YHWH] clearly indicates an individual angel, not an extension of Yahweh and expression of His presence. Zechariah’s “angel of the Lord” has a definite personality and shares far more with angels of Jewish apocalyptic literature than with earlier portions of the OT113.

Hannah adds that the Zechariah angel has all the functions of the angelus interpres, functions that are all attributed to Michael in various later revela- tions (those of intercessor, chief of the heavenly army, judiciary defender and opponent of Satan)114. In other words, the “angel who speaks in” Zecha- riah was readily able to be assimilated to Michael, notably because he inter- cedes for the salvation of Israel (Zech 1.12) and receives the promise that the Lord will be merciful for Jerusalem in return (Zech 1.16-17). It is no surprise to discover that this assimilation was done effectively: Jerome tells us that the Hebrews consider the angel of Zechariah 1 to be Michael115, an identification also remembered by Dionysius the Areopagite116. All these elements show that a “Poor reading” of Zechariah 1 LXX is plausible and could have led to the writing of a particular apocryphon of Zechariah, such as evoked in the second step above. So, when Tertullian speaks about in aliquo Zacharia, he does not understand exactly what “Ebion” asserts but invites us to reconsider the issue of the apocryphon of Zechariah, by virtue of the connection with Ebionite ideas. The Latin Christian author offers at the same time a cultural memory and forgetting about Ebionism.

112. SKARSAUNE, “The Ebionites”, p. 431; quoted in part 1 above. 113. Darrell HANNAH, Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 109), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999, p. 22. 114. See ibid., p. 23. 115. See JEROME, Commentary on the Little Minor Prophets. Zechariah 1.1,8-13. 116. See DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE, Celestial Hierarchy, 241A.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 330909 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 310 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41

5. Conclusion

This investigation into Tertullian’s De carne Christi 14.32-38 leads me to re-affirm the importance of this passage for research into Ebionism, contrary to Klijn and Reinink (1973) who used — though incorrectly — Evan’s edition of the text. The first step was a comparison between the last English (Evans 1956) and French (Mahé 1973) critical editions of the text, which disagree about the exact extent of the opinions associated by Tertullian with “Ebion”. In part 2, I confirm against Evans three important editorial choices of Mahé in the Latin text. The following translation is obtained from Mahé’s edition and the French translation: This opinion could have suited Ebion, who represents Jesus as a man, a mere man, a simple descendant of David’s race, who is then not simultaneously Son of God. He [Ebion] doubtless admits that [Jesus] was more outstanding than the prophets and explains that an angel was in him as in a certain Zechariah. Except that Christ never said “And the angel that spoke in me said to me”117.

According to this way of establishing and translating the text, “Ebion” postulated an angelic inhabitation of a mere human Jesus. Mahé bases this reading on the interpretation of the whole of chapter 14, where the expression angelum in filio in 14.25 “supposes a kind of angelical inspiration which differs sensibly from the Valentinian formula, angelum gestare”118. The task of part 3 was to verify the plausibility of Mahé’s reading, in the light of other available information about Ebionism. Such a concept of Ebi- onite Christology is also presented by Epiphanius in Panarion 30.16,4, but the Greek Father has some difficulty in accepting it and decides to order it into two chronological steps (a mere human Jesus, then linked to an archangel by the followers of Ebion). It would seem that the majority of present scholarship is still following Epiphanius’ chronological reconstruction of Ebionite Christology (3.1). By considering the work of Pamela Kinlaw about the possession of Jesus in the Gospel of John, as well as the topic of the seven Protoctists rooted in the Second Temple period, it is on the contrary plausible to consider a Christology based on the dual model of an intermittent angelic or pneumatic inhabitation as a very ancient one (3.2). Since there are echoes of Ebionism only as “the opinions of ‘others’”, as a counter-image in the eyes of the Fathers, I proposed to work with a dual category to improve our understanding of this movement: the Poor / the Ebionites. Such a two-part notion was used in part 4 to resolve an apparent

117. See MAHÉ (ed.), Tertullien. La chair du Christ, vol. 1, pp. 271-273; my English translation (quoted in part 2). 118. Ibid., vol. 2, p. 387; quoted in part 2.

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 331010 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43 DE CARNE CHRISTI, 14.30-41 311

contradiction in Mahé’s reading of De carne Christi 14.32-38. By mention- ing the Ebionite point of view, Tertullian refers to an undetermined “Zecha- riah” (in aliquo Zacharia) and employs at the same time an expression that can be recognized as coming from Zech 1.14 LXX: “And the angel that spoke in me said to me”. I defended the hypothesis that Tertullian had direct access to an Ebionite text, which probably conflated diverse figures of “Zechariah”, a phenomenon well attested in some Jewish and early Chris- tian writings. In this text, the Latin Father read also the affirmation that Christ said “And the angel that spoke in me said to me” and “Thus said the Lord”, both expressions used in the alleged Ebionite text. I proposed consequently to understand that the Ebionites wrote a specific text about Jesus by using some expressions of Zechariah 1 LXX, as well as conflating memories of various “Zechariahs”; this supposition is plausible in view of the number of traces and echoes that exist of Jewish or Judeo-Christian Apoc- rypha of Zechariah. I ended the paper by demonstrating that an earlier Poor reading of Zechariah 1 LXX was likely: indeed, this chapter mentions the attachment to Jerusalem, as well as the importance of the prophetic inspiration through an angelic inhabitation, and offers a textual anchorage for wor- ship of Michael and the first created archangels. The book of Zechariah — particularly the first chapter — offered an initial matrix for a Christian movement to develop a conception of Jesus as a superior prophet, intermittently inhabited by an angel belonging to the seven Protoctists and repeating the mercy of God for Jerusalem despite all the evidence to the contrary. Such ideas are presented as “Ebionite” by the Fathers, as the ideas of others, but they could initially have been those of the Poor, a movement that formed part of the diverse early Christian communities. This transfer is not only due to sociological reasons or to the apologetic verve of the Fathers: Tertullian probably read an Ebionite text adapting Zechariah’s memories to the figure of Jesus, with quite a weak intertextual link to the book of Zechariah, as Tertullian’s expression in aliquo Zacharia attests. This short passage of Tertullian — in its French edition — reinforces the likelihood of the antiquity of a dualistic Christol- ogy: a Jesus mere man, with an angelum in illo119.

Claire CLIVAZ [email protected]

119. It is probable that such a perception also had consequences for the text of the New Testament itself as, for example, on the reception of Lk 22.43-44 (see Claire CLIVAZ, L’ange et la sueur de sang (Lc 22.43-44) ou comment on pourrait bien encore écrire l’histoire (BiTS 7, Leuven: Peeters, 2010).

993578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd3578_REJ_3-4_2010_02_.indd 331111 117/01/117/01/11 09:4309:43