PreacJiing through Many Voices: Caesarius of Arles on Genesis 18 Hans Boersma Through Another’s Voice I would have a good sampling of different hate theology textbooks.* They theologians: Origen, the brilliant if contro- are utterly boring: typically, they versial third-eentury theologian who shaped present lifeless, meagre distilla- the Alexandrian theological traditiom St. tions of what once-upon-a-time John Chrysostom, the famous fourth- were vibrant insights conveyed century representative of the Antiochene Hans Boersma with conviction and passion, school, whose powerful preaching earned isj. / . Packer Professor of by contrast, it is nothing short of a daz- him the moniker “Golden Mouth”; and Theology at zling experience to read Augustine’s The then Caesarius, the sixth-century Western Regent College. Trinity. Likewise, following along with abbot and bishop from Arles, on the south- St. Anselm’s prayerful exploration ofwhy ern coast of France. True, my familiarity God Became Man is enough to heal even with Caesarius was limited, but compar- the most prejudiced from their instinctive ing theologians from three fairly divergent abhorrence of scholastic theology. And the traditions—Alexandrian, Antiochene, and bewitching rhetoric of Karl Barth’sChurch A gustinian— seemed a good thing to do. Dogmatics must be tempting even to ardent Or, at least, so it did at the outset. As neo-Thomists of the so-called “strict obser- I started reading Caesarius, I had an inter- vanee.” So, hoping not to turn off my esting experience. The bishop’s Sermon 83 students prematurely from their theologi- (“On the Three Men Who Appeared to cal studies, I mostly have them read the blessed Abraham”) turned out to be, well “great texts” of the history of the church— ...a meagre distillation of the vibrant using textbooks only by way of emergency, insights once conveyed with conviction when shortcuts seem unavoidable. Cetting and passion by Origen: it was “another’s to know the work of a great theologianvoice.” Caesarius turned out to have been through another’s voice—some secondarya populariser of the theology of earlier bril- text—has always seemed to me an inferior liant thinkers, passing on their thoughts to way of learning the trade. his own contemporaries. He was a “text- However, coming across an early sixth- book theologian.” In fact, the similarities century sermon of Caesarius of Arles made between Origen’s and Caesarius’s sermons -Genesis 18 is such that in less chari ٨٨ .me repent of at least some of my disdain My act of repentance occurred as I was table moments I might accuse Caesarius preparing a lecture in which I was going of plagiarism.1 I know, intellectual prop- to compare sermons preached by three dif- erty rights are a modern invention, and ferent church fathers on Genesis 18—the Origen might have been honoured rather well-known story of the so-called Mamre than upset by Caesarius’s use of his ser- theophany, of Abraham welcoming three mons. Still, my idea of treating Origen, unexpected visitors. I figured that by com- Chrysostom, and Caesarius as represen- paring Origen, Chrysostom, and Caesarius, tatives of three particular traditions was Preaching through Many Voices: Caesarius of Arles on Genesis 18 clearly going down the drain: Caesarius was work makes for much greater productivity “merely” a textbook theologian. than coming up with one’s own exegesis All of this got me thinking. Caesarius’s and presenting it in homiletic form. And lifo story as a whole appeared impressive so, Caesarius set out to produce an assembly to me.^ Would his preaching really be an line of sermon production. Germain Morin exception? For example, Caesarius actively describes Caesarius’s practice by explaining promoted monasticism, convinced that it that he set up a library workshop by the St. would serve as a leaven throughout Gaul Stephen cathedral in Arles: and beyond. In particular, he organized the The more accomplished stu- building of a monastery for women, just out- dents were assigned the task of side the city walls of Arles, which he placed extracting from the writings of under the direction of his sister, Caesaria.^ the Fathers, especially from St. Also, during his more than four decades as Augustine, those passages best the bishop of Arles, Caesarius worked with suited to the instruction of the the political rulers of his day— both of the people. Then the bishop would Arian and of the Nicene variety— to alle- touch up this material, abridging viate poverty and to buy out hostages so the uselessly wordy passages and as to return to them their freedom. At one bringing light into the obscure point, as he was sent to King Theodoric on ones, so that there remained only charges of treason, the king not only acquit- what was practical and intelligible ted him but also gave him his unqualified to all.After that he would add support, symbolized by the gift of a splendid a preface and a peroration in his silver bowl weighing sixty pounds. Rather own style, generally very short. than keep the bowl, Caesarius sold it and Sometimes he would even insert used the money to buy out additional hos- some products of “his own small tagest And as the primate of Gaul, Bishop self,” as he put it, and these assur- Caesarius was obviously concerned also edly were the best of all. Then for the truth of the gospel, as is clear from he would make up collections of his role as the présider over several church fifteen, twenty or fifty sermons, councils, the most famous of which was the or even more.6 Council of Orange, which settled the semi- Felagian controversy in 529.5 Caesarius was Caesarius wasn’t the kind of preacher inter- an inspiring figure. ested in dazzling his audience with his own But what to do with Caesarius’s preach- brilliance or originality. The great passion ing? Obviously, 1 could not read his sermons of his life was to have the gospel spread for their originality or brilliance. But were throughout Europe and beyond, and as the they merely an embarrassing aspect of an most influential ecclesial figure in Gaul, he otherwise inspiring story? Was it time for realized that he was uniquely positioned me to place my Caesarius file in the basket of to spread the gospel in sermonic form. As “failed leads”? 1 chose not to— and 1 like to Sr. Mary Magdeleine Mueller puts it, “To think this was the right decision. Caesarius judge by the number and country of origin may not have been a “Golden Mouth,” of the manuscripts that contain sermons of but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t an impor- Caesarius, they must have enjoyed an excep- tant and influential preacher. Certainly, tional vogue, first almost everywhere in the bishop of Arles was convinced of the central Europe, from the sixth to the twelfth importance ofpreaching. Interestingly, it century, then in ascetical milieux from the is precisely because he was so convinced fourteenth to the sixteenth century.”^ It is that preaching lies at the basis of cultural preaching through another’s voice that made renewal that Caesarius copied predeces- it possible for Caesarius to have an impact sors such as Origen: copying other people’s on the subsequent tradition. Ferhaps, then, و.ه ^ ,Vol. 50/ااﻫﻢ :/ رس 2014 his audience how exactly it is that ٢٠ it is still worthwhile spending time with ing Caesarius’s sermon, “On the Three Men these two passages from Paul’s Corinthian Who Appeared to Blessed Abraham.” correspondence establish the need for alle- gorical exegesis. My hunch is that these two Through Origen’s Voice Bible texts were so commonplace through- Caesarius’s sermon on the Mamre theoph- out the patristic era that Caesarius did not any (a Greek term, simply meaning feel the need to expand on them. “appearance of G od”) is both brief and Much of the rest of the sermon is, as straightforward, as most of his sermons 1 mentioned, a fairly straightforward sum- tend to be. The preacher from Arles wastes mary of Homily 4 from Origen’sHomilies no time in getting to the biblical text; he on Genesis. Summarizing it was a particu- manages to develop numerous different larly easy task considering that Caesarius exegetical and theological points within had a Latin translation in front of him.9 the narrow confines of his short horn- Caesarius’s sermon preserves in broad out- bishop was obviously intent not to lines the order of Origen’s sermon, and he ه. ily leave out any of the wonderful nuggets that even adopts numerous details of the exegesis he believed were contained in the text of (often down to the very vocabulary) of his Origen’s fourth homily on Genesis. Greek predecessor. Like Origen, Caesarius Caesarius prefaces his scribal activity, treats Lot as far inferior to Abraham. While however, by explaining, in a brief intro- “three men came to Abraham and stood ductory paragraph, the importance of over him; two came to Lot and stayed in Lot was“ ﻣﻞ 1.) :وallegorical exegesis: the street” (Gen. 18:1-2; 1 unable to endure the power of the noon- 1 have fre^ently admonished day sun, but Abraham could stand its your charity, dearly beloved, that Lot, unlike ﺗﻞ:ول full brightness” (11.(18:1 in the lessons which are read in Abraham, didn’t have clear perception of church these days you should not trinitarian doctrine: Abraham asks Sarah to only pay attention to what we bake three loaves (18:6), which, Caesarius know is meant by the letter, but clarifies, “in Greek . are called loaves removing the veil of the letter when baked under ashes, indicating that should devoutly seek the life- they are hidden or concealed”;^ earlier, giving spirit.