Markus Vinzent's Blog

Thursday, 6 August 2015

Did the Valentinian Heracleon write a Commentary on Luke or on Marcion's Gospel?


As Tertullian himself indicates in De praescriptione 25,1 (ut diximus), he first refers to the earlier discussion of Marcion’s position of the ignorance of the Apostles to here move on to the Valentinian tenets, according to which the Apostles ‘were neither ignorant ... nor preached different doctrines’, ‘but committed some things openly to all, and others secretly to a few’. It is interesting to learn from Tertullian that such claims were based on the Pastoral Letters. Already Michael Baumgarten has brought together the evidence that the Valentinians made use of and quoted the Pastoral Letters,[1] and it is particularly interesting that it was precisely in Heracleon’s commentary not on Luke 12:9-11, as it has always been thought, but, as it will be shown, on Marcion’s Gospel where this ‘most distinguished of the school of Valentinus’[2] uses 2Tim. 2:13:
 
 
 
Heracleon, Fragment, in Clem. Alex., Strom. IV 9
Heracleon, Fragment, in Clem. Alex., Strom. IV 9 (trans. William Wilson, ANF, altered)
Τοῦτον ἐξηγούμενος τὸν τόπον Ἡρακλέων ὁ
τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς δοκιμώτατος
κατὰ λέξιν φησὶν
ὁμολογίαν εἶναι τὴν μὲν ἐν πίστει καὶ πολιτείᾳ, τὴν δὲ ἐν φωνῇ.
ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐν φωνῇ ὁμολογία καὶ
ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσιῶν γίνεται, ἣν μόνην, φησίν, ὁμολογίαν ἡγοῦνται εἶναι
οἱ πολλοὶ οὐχ ὑγιῶς,
δύνανται δὲ ταύτην τὴν ὁμολογίαν καὶ οἱ ὑποκριταὶ ὁμολογεῖν.
ἀλλ' οὐδ' εὑρεθήσεται οὗτος ὁ λόγος
καθολικῶς εἰρημένος· οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ σῳζόμενοι ὡμολόγησαν τὴν διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὁμολογίαν καὶ ἐξῆλθον, ἐξ ὧν Ματθαῖος, Φίλιππος, Θωμᾶς, Λευῒς καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοί.
καὶ ἔστιν ἡ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὁμολογία οὐ καθολική, ἀλλὰ μερική.
καθολικὴ δὲ ἣν νῦν λέγει, ἡ
ἐν ἔργοις καὶ πράξεσι καταλλήλοις
τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν πίστεως.
ἕπεται δὲ ταύτῃ τῇ ὁμολογίᾳ καὶ ἡ
μερικὴ ἡ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσιῶν, ἐὰν δέῃ καὶ
ὁ λόγος αἱρῇ.
ὁμολογήσει γὰρ οὗτος καὶ τῇ φωνῇ,
ὀρθῶς προομολογήσας πρότερον τῇ διαθέσει.
καὶ καλῶς ἐπὶ μὲν
τῶν ὁμολογούντων ἐν ἐμοὶ εἶπεν,
ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἀρνουμένων τὸ ἐμὲ προσέθηκεν.
οὗτοι γάρ, κἂν τῇ φωνῇ ὁμολογήσωσιν
αὐτόν, ἀρνοῦνται αὐτόν,
τῇ πράξει μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες.
μόνοι δ' ἐν αὐτῷ ὁμολογοῦσιν οἱ ἐν τῇ κατ' αὐτὸν πολιτείᾳ καὶ πράξει βιοῦντες, ἐν
οἷς καὶ αὐτὸς ὁμολογεῖ ἐνειλημμένος
αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐχόμενος ὑπὸ τούτων.
διόπερ ἀρνήσασθαι αὐτὸν οὐδέποτε δύνανται (2Tim. 2:13)·
ἀρνοῦνται δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ μὴ ὄντες ἐν αὐτῷ. οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ὃς ἀρνήσηται ἐν ἐμοί, ἀλλ' ἐμέ·
οὐδεὶς γάρ ποτε ὢν ἐν αὐτῷ ἀρνεῖται αὐτόν.
τὸ δὲ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν σῳζομένων καὶ τῶν ἐθνικῶν δὲ ὁμοίως παρ' οἷς μὲν καὶ τῇ πολιτείᾳ, παρ' οἷς δὲ καὶ τῇ φωνῇ. διόπερ ἀρνήσασθαι αὐτὸν οὐδέποτε δύνανται· ἀρνοῦνται δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ μὴ ὄντες ἐν αὐτῷ.
Ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Ἡρακλέων·
In explanation of this passage, Heracleon, the most distinguished of the school of Valentinus, says expressly,
that there is a confession by faith and conduct, and one with the voice.
The confession that is made with the voice, and before the authorities, is what the most reckon the only confession.
Not soundly, though,
as also hypocrites can confess with this
confession.
But neither will this utterance be found to be spoken universally; for all the saved have confessed with the confession made by the voice, and departed. Of whom are Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi, and many others.
And confession by the lip is not universal,
but partial.
But that which He specifies now is universal, that which is by deeds and actions corresponding to faith in Him.
This confession is followed by that which is partial, that before the authorities, if necessary, and reason dictate.
For he will confess rightly with his voice who has first confessed by his disposition.
And he has well used, with regard to those who confess, the expression
in Me,
and applied to those who deny the expression
Me. For those, though they confess Him with the voice, yet deny Him, not confessing Him in their conduct.
But those alone confess in Him, who live in the confession and conduct according to Him, in which He also confesses, who is contained in them and held by them.
Wherefore
He never can deny Himself
(2Tim. 2:13).
And those deny Him who are not in Him. For He said not,
Whosoever shall deny in Me, but Me. For no one who is in Him will ever deny Him. And the expression before men applies both to the saved and the heathen similarly by conduct before the one, and by voice before the other. Wherefore they never can deny Him.
But those deny Him who are not in Him
.
So far Heracleon.


 
If we had no other fragment by Heracleon, from this one alone we could agree with Clement’s characterisation of him as a most distinguished teacher. What Heracleon is saying here is subtle and shows him as a highly sensitive interpreter far from any sophistery. He first distinguishes between two forms of confession (ὁμολογία), one by faith and conduct and one by voice. And he sees that in the pericope under discussion, there is mention of a confession before the authorities (12:11) which he sees as the one that ‘most reckon’ to be ‘the only confession’, apparently the way, this passage was either understood by other readers or by the author of the text itself. The plural (‘most’; οἱ πολλοί) points, however, towards readers. Heracleon sees two reasons why this is not the only and even not the most important confession, as he is going to develop further. The first reason he gives is that also ‘hypocrites’ can make such oral confessions. More importantly, however, is his second reason, namely that such oral confessions are not ‘universal’ ones, but ‘partial’ ones, making the distinction between οὐ καθολική, ἀλλὰ μερική. Interestingly amongst those who have made ‘partial’ confessions he counts important names of Apostles: Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi and adds ‘many others’. It is a partial confession only, because it is necessitated by a specific situation, or called for by authorities and follows the dictate of reason.
In contrast to this form of confession of the voice (or the lips), Heracleon develops what he means by the universal, the true confession which is ‘corresponding to faith in Him’ – and this is the first of the above defined confession, the one ‘by deeds and actions’. Yet, he also adds that the two forms of confession should not be entirely separated, but that the confession of the voice has to be preceeded by the one of ‘disposition’ or ‘action’ (τῇ διαθέσει; τῇ πράξει). He then gives a precise definition of the essential confession: It is confessing ‘in Him, who live in the confession and conduct according to Him, in which He also confesses, who is contained in them and held by them’.[1] It is a mutual being-in of the one who believes in Him and the Lord in whom the confessor believes and who is contained in the believer and held by the believer.
This immediacy between believer and the divine, Heracleon could not have found in Luke 12:9-11, as contrary to Marcion’s Gospel (as attested by Tertullian) the textus receptus of Luke places ‘the angels’ as mediators in between the believers and the Lord:
Mcn *12:8-9 (teste Tert., reconstr. M. Klinghardt)
Luke 12:8-9
 
Matth. 10:32-3
8Λέγω δὲ γὰρ ὑμῖν,
πᾶς ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσῃ
ἐν ἐμοὶ
ἐνώπιον
τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
καὶ

ὁμολογήσω                ἐν αὐτῷ
ἐνώπιον

τοῦ θεοῦ:

9 καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀρνησάμενός με
ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων
ἀπαρνηθήσεται
ἐνώπιον

τοῦ θεοῦ.
8Λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν,
πᾶς ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσῃ
ἐν ἐμοὶ
ἔμπροσθεν
τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
καὶ
ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
ὁμολογήσει                 ἐν αὐτῷ
ἔμπροσθεν
τῶν ἀγγέλων
τοῦ θεοῦ:

9       δὲ ἀρνησάμενός με
ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων
ἀπαρνηθήσεται
ἐνώπιον
τῶν ἀγγέλων
τοῦ θεοῦ.

32
Πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ὁμολογήσει
ἐν ἐμοὶ
ἔμπροσθεν
τῶν ἀνθρώπων,


ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ
ἔμπροσθεν

τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν [τοῖς] οὐρανοῖς:
33ὅστις δ' ἂν ἀρνήσηταί με
ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
ἀρνήσομαι κἀγὼ αὐτὸν
ἔμπροσθεν

τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν [τοῖς]
οὐρανοῖς.

Tertullian clearly points out the immediacy between believer and Lord in Marcion’s Gospel: ‘For I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, I will confess him before God[1] and Epiphianis highlights precisely the difference between Marcion’s immediacy and Luke’s angelic mediation, when he notes that in Marcion’s Gospel we read that we read instead of Ὁμολογήσει ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ simply Ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ.[2] There is no mention of angels in Heracleon and angels as in Luke would have defied the idea of such mutual in-being between believer and the one the believer believes in. Moreover, Luke reads like an attempt to remove such intimacy, whereas Heracleon seems to read Marcion’s Gospel by also relying on 2Timothy to substantiate his view that such essential union makes it entirely impossible to be dissolved and, conversely, that people who do not live in such union by their very nature – and not only in given situations – are in denial of the Lord.
In our passage of De praescriptione, therefore, Tertullian, rightly moves from contradicting Marcion to an argument against those Valentinians whom he has branded to be disciples of Marcion before. It is not unlikely that the quotes from the Pastoral Letters (here 1 and 2Timothy) which he puts into the mouth of his opponents have indeed been used by his Valentinian opponents.



[1] Tert., Adv. Marc. IV 28,4: Dico enim vobis, omnis qui confitebitur in me coram hominibus, confitebor in illo coram deo.
[2] Epiph., Pan. Schol. 30: ἀντὶ τοῦ Ὁμολογήσει ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ Ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ λέγει.



[1] See also his spiritual interpretation of the ‘in Him’ in Orig., In Ioh. 15.




[1] M. Baumgarten, Die Aechtheit der Pastoralbriefe (1837), 38; this is also noted by E. Pagels, The Gnostic Paul (1975), 166 (although she erroneously Clem. Alex., Strom. 2.13 instead of 4.9).
[2] More on Heracleon see Tert., Adv. Val. 4,2; Iren., Adv. haer. II 4,1; Hipp., Ref. VI 24; 30; Origen, In Ioh. II 15.

Sunday, 28 June 2015

Marcion's two recensions of his Gospel


One of the most important insights of my Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels (2014) was the discovery that Marcion’s Gospel existed in two different versions, first as a pre-published, presumably stand-alone draft, and secondly as a published edition with the framing of the Antitheses and the 10 Pauline Letters. How did I derive to this conclusion? The key text in this respect is Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem IV 4,2 which, in a second step, I’d like to put into the broader frame of Tertullian’s discussion of Marcion’s Antitheses and his Gospel in Adversus Marcionem IV 1-5, so that we can follow Tertullian’s arguments. Here, first the crucial passage from Adversus Marcionem IV 4,2[1]:

 

Quam absurdum, ut, si nostrum antiquius probaverimus, Marcionis vero posterius, et nostrum ante videatur falsum quam habuerit de veritate materiam, et Marcionis ante credatur aemulationem a nostro expertum quam et editum; et postremo id verius existimetur quod est serius, post tot ac tanta iam opera atque documenta Christianae religionis saeculo edita, quae edi utique non potuissent sine evangelii veritate, id est ante evangelii veritatem.

 

I add the English translation of Ernest Evans of 1972 (Oxford):

How preposterous it would be that when we have proved ours the older, and that Marcion's has emerged later, ours should be taken to have been false before it had from the truth material <for falsehood to work on>, and Marcion's be believed to have suffered hostility from ours before it was even published: and in the end <how ridiculous> that that which is later should be reckoned more true, even after the publication to the world of all those great works and evidences of the Christian religion which surely could never have been produced except for the truth of the gospel—even before the gospel was true.

And the German translation of Karl Adam Heinrich Kellner (BKV, Köln, 1882):

Wenn wir erwiesen haben, dass unser Evangelium älter, das Marcionitische dagegen jünger sei, so wäre es höchst absurd, dass einerseits unser Evangelium schon als ein gefälschtes erscheinen sollte, bevor ein echtes ihm den Stoff dazu geliefert hatte, andererseits das Marcionitische durch das unsrige Widerspruch erfahren habe, bevor es herausgegeben war, und endlich drittens, dass das in höherem Grade als echt gelten soll, was spätern Ursprungs ist, nachdem bereits so viele wichtige Werke und Urkunden der christlichen Religion im Laufe der Zeit erschienen waren, die ohne ein echtes Evangelium, d. h. vor einem echten Evangelium, nicht hätten erscheinen können.

According to the New Testament scholars James Carleton Paget and Frederik Mulders, referring to the quoted passage, ‘the Latin clearly states that Marcion accused the “upholders of Judaism” of having falsified Luke, not of having falsified his own Gospel’.[2]

It seems that such reading is informed by Tertullian’s own interpretation of Marcion’s views, but it is incorrect, if one takes Marcion’s perspective, as given by Tertullian (whether or not historically correct). So, let us explore the passage in more detail:

Tertullian points out that he has ‘proved’ his Gospel to be the older, compared to the Gospel of Marcion, as ‘Marcion’s has emerged later’.[3] While Tertullian is certainly referring to Luke here, in reality in Adversus Marcionem he is mostly working with Matthew. Whichever is meant (we will later see, Tertullian, by using the singular ‘nostrum’ is aggregating here the four later canonical Gospels), Tertullian adds against Marcion that it would be ‘preposterous’ (Evans), or ‘absurd’ (Kellner) (absurdum) if his Gospel ‘should be taken to have been false’ (‘als ein gefälschtes erscheinen sollte’ = should look as if it were plagiarism). Up to this point, there is no mention made about ‘upholders of Judaism’ who have ‘falsified Luke’, but Marcion is being referred to as having claimed that Tertullian’s Gospel looked like a ‘false’ one, a plagiarising one (videatur falsum). The nature of that ‘falsity’ or ‘plagiarism’ is now being further detailed by Tertullian who is still relating Marcion’s argument: ante … quam habuerit de veritate materiam, rendered by Evans as ‘before it had from the truth material’ and by Kellner ‘bevor ein echtes ihm dazu den Stoff geliefert hätte’. This section has been overlooked by Carleton Paget and Mulders, as Marcion is supposed to claim here that a) his own Gospel he regarded as the true one (verum), while he saw the Gospel of Tertullian as the false one (falsum), and c) that the falsity was a form of plagiarism of Marcion’s, as the false Gospel had taken material (Evans) or the material (Kellner: ‘den Stoff’) from the true one. With Evans explanatory addition ‘for falsehood to work on’ is only the nature of the plagiarising redactor further detailed.

Now, the next claim of Marcion, referred to by Tertullian, is even further explicating the nature of this plagiarism: ‘Marcion’s [Gospel] be believed to have suffered hostility from ours’ (Kellner: ‘das Marcionitische[4] durch das unsrige Widerspruch erfahren habe’) (Marcionis ante credatur aemulationem a nostro expertum).

In whichever way one wants to translate ‘aemulatio’, be it by ‘hostility’ (Evans), ‘Widerspruch’ (Kellner), with Lewis and Short’s dictionary as ‘an assiduous striving to equal or excel another in any thing, emulation’, or with Cicero a ‘defective emulation which is similar to rivalry’,[5] it is clear that Marcion believed, the Gospel of Luke (and, as we will see from Tertullian’s report, also the other later canonical Gospels) to be a bad copy of his own, a copy from which is own true Gospel had suffered (Evans) or was even contradicted (Kellner).

As important as this information is the further detail of when such copying and suffering or contradicting took place. Tertullian adds in his report: ante … quam et editum, rendered by Evans as ‘before it was even published’, by Kellner as ‘bevor es herausgegeben war’, the subject of this sentence being ‘Marcionis [evangelium]’. And although Kellner misses to translate the ‘et’, both translators agree that according to Marcion (as reported by Tertullian), he had complained that the false Gospel of Tertullian had taken (Kellner: its) material from Marcion’s true one, even before Marcion had published his true Gospel.

And Tertullian is giving the ultimate point of Marcion’s claim, namely that this Gospel ‘should be reckoned more true, even after the publication to the world of all those great works and evidences of the Christian religion’ (Kellner: ‘dass das in höherem Grade als echt gelten soll, was spätern Ursprungs ist, nachdem bereits so viele wichtige Werke und Urkunden der christlichen Religion im Laufe der Zeit erschienen waren’): postremo id verius existimetur quod est serius, post tot ac tanta iam opera atque documenta Christianae religionis saeculo edita.

According to this third and ultimate point, Marcion is said to have made the – for Tertullian certainly highly absurd – claim that his Gospel was the true one, despite the fact that it was published lately (quod est serius) compared to the publication of those opera atque documenta of the Christian religion, by which he means the later canonical Gospels.

Having gone through this text, it is clear that according to Marcion’s view, his own, the true Gospel, stood at the beginning, on the basis of which the alteration was made, a bad copying of and a taking of material from his own Gospel. This plagiarism had taken place, even before he had published this text. And yet, he maintained that because of the plagiarised nature of the other works and documents, his own Gospel remained to be the true one, despite those others having been published before he himself did publish his own, as we know, by adding to it the Antitheses in which precisely he made those claims, as Tertullian in Adversus Marcionem IV 1-4 first comments on Marcion’s Antitheses. As a second defense of his Gospel, Marcion, only now also seems to have added the collection of 10 Pauline Letters to flag up the consistency between his Gospel and the Gospel of which Paul spoke in his writings.

 




[1] The interpretation of which in my Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels (2014) had been criticised by James Carleton Paget and Frederik Mulders. See James Carleton Paget, 'Marcion and the Resurrection: Some Thoughts on a Recent Book', Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35 (2012), 74-102 and Frederik Mulders, in his impressively well documented and carefully edited blog (http://resurrectionhope.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/markus-vinzents-questionable.html).
[2] J. Carleton Paget, ‘Marcion and the Resurrection: Some Thoughts on a Recent Book’ (2012), 94 n. 47, also quoted by Frederik Mulders in the before mentioned blog entry.
[3] The German translation of ‘Marcionis’ with ‘Marcionitische [Evangelium]’ is, of course, imprecise and already an interpretation, based on the assumption of the Gospel not being that of Marcion, but only of Marcionite use or character.
[4] On Kellner’s tendentious translation of Marcionis with ‘Marcionitische’, see the above note.

Saturday, 27 June 2015

Eckhart Sprüche - Eckhart Sayings

Viele im Internet geisternde Eckhart-Sprüche sind leider ohne Stellenangaben, und oftmals stammen sie auch nicht vom Meister (auch wenn sie bisweilen von ihm stammen könnten). Da ich immer wieder nach solchen Sprüchen gefragt werde, beginne ich hier gerne, solche Sprüche mit den entsprechenden Fundstellen bei Eckhart (falls möglich) aufzulisten

Many of the Eckhart sayings which can be found on the internet are given without bibliographical details, and quite often they do not derive from the pen of Eckhart, although they might reflect his thinking. As I am quite often asked to provide the reference, I am happy to start here a list of such sayings:


1.) „Wenn ein Mensch nie mehr zu tun hatte mit Gott, außer, dass er dankbar ist, dann ist es genug“
oder:
„Wäre das Wort ‚Danke‘ das einzige Gebet, das du je sprichst, so würde es genügen“!
or
"If the only prayer you ever say in your entire life is thank you, it will be enough."
Eckhart, Pr. 34 (DW II 169,1-2): „Hæte der mensche niht me ze tuonne mit gote, dan daz er dankbære ist, ez wære genuoc“.

Thursday, 25 June 2015

Eckhart's Latin Sermon XVI - English translation

As I am working on the relation between Eckhart and Pseudo-Chrysostom's Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, I had to translate Eckhart's Latin sermo XVI which is entirely based on this spurious, but extremely interesting Patristic work. As there is no available English translation, here follows the text with my own translation:

'Omnis qui irascitur fratri suo reus erit iudicio' Matth. 5.[1]

◊163◊ Chrysostomus super isto verbo: »si ira non fuerit, nec doctrina proficit nec iudicia stant nec crimina compescuntur. Iusta ergo ira mater est disciplinae«.  Unde littera Chrysostomi habet sic: 'qui irascitur fratri suo sine causa'. Et sequitur in Chrysostomo: »iracundia quae cum causa est nec est iracundia, sed iudicium. Iracundia enim proprie intelligitur commotio passionis. Qui autem cum causa irascitur, ira illius iam non ex passione est, sed ex causa, ideo iudicare dicitur, non irasci«. Hoc Chrysostomus, et consonat illud Psalmi:  'irascimini et nolite peccare'. Item Augustinus X De civitate dei: »Stoicis non placet passiones cadere in sapientem«. Peripatetici vero has »in sapientem <LW4:156> cadere« dicunt, »sed moderatas rationique subiectas«, sicut cum »ita praebetur misericordia, ut iustitia conservetur«. »In disciplina christiana non tamen quaeritur utrum pius animus irascatur« »aut tristetur, sed unde«. Hoc Augustinus.  Hieronymus autem super Matth. 5 dicit: »'qui irascitur fratri suo'. In quibusdam codicibus additur 'sine causa'. Ceterum in veris definita sententia est et ira penitus tollitur«. Si enim iubemur« »orare pro persequentibus, omnis irae occasio tollitur. Radendum est ergo 'sine causa', quia 'ira viri iustitiam dei non operatur'«. 

◊164◊ Rursus Augustinus libro Retractationum c. 18 sic ait: »illud dicimus intuendum quid sit irasci fratri suo, quoniam non fratri irascitur, qui peccato irascitur fratris; qui ergo fratri, non peccato irascitur, sine causa irascitur«.  Idem XIV De civitate dei: »irasci fratri, ut corrigatur, nullus sanae mentis reprehendit«. »Huiusmodi enim motus de amore boni et de sancta caritate venientes vitia dicenda non sunt, cum rectam rationem sequantur«. Hoc  Augustinus.  <LW4:157>

◊165◊ Adhuc Chrysostomus ubi supra: »quando homo irascitur et non vult facere quod ira compellit, caro eius irata est, animus autem eius non est iratus.  Ergo multi sunt quorum caro irascitur, anima autem non irascitur«. »Puto autem: non de iracundia carnis loquitur Christus, sed de spiritu« dicit, »nec enim est possibile, ut caro non turbetur, quia 'sapientia carnis inimica est in deum'«. Beda super Matth. 5: 'nisi abundaverit' etc. in omni concordat cum Chrysostomo, ut addatur 'sine causa'. Item Chrysostomus super Matth. 5 de 'mandatis istis minimis' dicit: »non irasci difficile est, quia naturaliter in hominibus iracundia est plantata dicente Iob: 'homo natus de muliere plenus iracundia'«. Littera est Chrisostomi. Hugo super regulam Augustini: »ne ira crescat in odium« dicit: »nulli irascenti ira sua videtur iniusta«.  'Reconciliari fratri tuo'. Quasi dicat: per hoc sit tibi frater. Quod si frater, omnia sua diligis et ipsis frueris ut fratris tui; omnia sua tua ut fratris.

Translation:
 
Anyone who is angry with his brother will be subjected to judgement (Matth. 5:22)
◊163◊ Chrysostom [says] on this saying: ‘If there were no anger, no doctrine emerged, no judgement would stand, no crime could be prevented. Just anger, therefore, is the mother of order’. Therefore, the wording of Chrysostomus has it the following way: ‘Who is angry with his brother for no reason’ (Matth. 5:22). And it follows in Chrysostom: ‘Anger that exists for a reason is no anger, but judgement. Because anger is properly understood as motion of passion. Who, however, is angry for a reason, his anger does surely not derive from passion, but from reason, and, therefore, is called judging, not being angry’. So far Chrysostom who is consonant with that Psalm [4:5]: Be angry, but do not sin. Augustine, too [says] in book 10 of The City of God: ‘The Stoics do not agree that the passions befall a wise one’, while the Peripatetics say that they do ‘befall a wise one’, but that ‘they [the passions] are moderated by and subjected to the mind’, as, for example, when ‘one shows mercy in a way that justice is preserved’. ‘In Christian teaching, however, one does not ask whether or not a pious soul is angry or sad, but why’. So far Augustine. Jerome, then, says on Matth. 5: ‘Who is angry with his brother. In certain manuscripts, it is added “for no reason”. On the other side, in reliable ones, the final sentence excludes all inner anger’. If, then, we are asked ‘to pray for those who persecute, every occasion for anger is excluded. Hence, “for no reason” has to be rased off, because “the anger of man does not produce the justice of God”’ [James 1:20].
◊164◊ Augustine, again, in the book Retractations, ch. 18 says as follows: ‘We say it has to be taken into account, what it is that makes angry with one’s brother, because the one is not angry with a brother who is angry with the sin of the brother; who, therefore, is angry with a brother, not with the sin, is angry for no reason’. The same [states] in [book] XIV of The City of God, that ‘to be angry with a brother, in order to be corrected, will by no healthy mind be reprehended’. ‘In this way, namely, where motion derives from the love of the good and holy grace, it cannot be called a vice, as it follows the right reason’. So far Augustine.
◊165◊ Furthermore, Chrysostom [says], as further above: ‘When a human being is angry and does not want to do what anger compels him to do, his body is angered, his mind, however is not angered. There are, therefore, many whose body is angered, whereas the soul is not angered’. ‘I believe, however, Christ is not speaking about the anger of the body, but’ speaks ‘of that of the mind’, as it is not possible that the body is not touched, for the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God [Rom. 8:7]’. Bede on Matth. 5[:20] concords entirely with Chrysostom: ‘Unless [your rightesness] exceeds’, when he adds ‘for no reason’. In addition, Chrysostom says on Matth. 5[:19]: The least of these commandments: ‘It is difficult, not to become angry, because anger is naturally planted into human beings, as Job says: human beings, born from a mother, are full of anger [Job 14:1]’, so far Chrysostom literally. Hugh [of St. Victory] says about the rule of Augustine ‘that anger should not grow into hate’: ‘To nobody who is angry does his anger seem to be unjust’. Reconcile yourself with your brother [Matth. 5:24], as if he said: Hereby he may your brother. So that, if he is a brother, love all what is his and enjoy what is his as your brother's. All that is his is yours, as of a brother's.





[1] Eckhart, Sermo XVI nn. 163-5 (LW IV 155,1-157,13).

 

Thursday, 4 June 2015

Eckhart’s Parisian Sermo paschalis Parisius habitus (18.4.1294, Paris) in English

Here another of Eckhart's early Latin texts with my own English translation which , to my knowledge, had not yet been translated yet into English:


Sermo paschalis a. 1294 Parisius habitus
Easter Homily from the year 1294, given at Paris
fr. Ekhardus lector Sententiarum.
In die Resurrectionis
'Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus. Itaque epulemur', ad Cor. 'Epulari autem et gaudere oportebat, quia frater tuus mortuus fuerat et revixit', in Luca.
 
◊1◊ Prothema hoc directe, ut videtur, themati et praesenti sollemnitati correspondet. Cum enim Marcus Tullius, quem Augustinus commendat praecipue inter omnes rhetores, tam in veteri quam nova Rhetorica scribat quod inter alia quattuor sunt quae cum aviditate audiuntur, scilicet quando ea quae proponuntur sunt pertinentia ad singulos, et sunt incredibilia quia mirabilia, et sunt nova quia insolita, et <LW5:137> magna quia supernaturalia, haec quattuor tanguntur in his verbis secundo positis quia haec, de quibus hodie agit ecclesia, tangunt singulos - hoc notatur, cum dicit: 'frater tuus', scilicet Christus -; item sunt incredibilia, cum summe sint mirabilia, quia »deus«, qui est »sphaera intelligibilis« et incomprehensibilis, »cuius centrum ubique et circumferentia nusquam«, sub specie panis sumendus proponitur - unde 'epulari et gaudere oportebat' -; item sunt nova, scilicet quod vita moritur - unde 'mortuus fuerat' -, et magna - 'et revixit' -, quia mortuus vitae restituitur, propria scilicet virtute, in aeternum victurus.
 
 
 
 

◊2◊ De primo: de tua enim re agitur. Unde in Gen.: 'frater enim noster et caro est'. Item: 'hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis' etc. Hic quia sub specie panis proponitur, et haec incredibilia. Unde Is., et ponitur in Epistula ad Romanos: 'domine, quis credidit auditui nostro?', quasi dicens: incredibilia sunt. Dicitur autem: 'auditui nostro', forte quia 'fides ex auditu', vel forte quia in sacramento altaris intellectus evacuatur, visus, gustus et alii sensus captivantur, sed <LW5:138> solus auditus illigatus evadit et verum nobis nuntiat. Unde potest dicere illud Iob: 'ego evasi solus, ut nuntiarem tibi'. Sunt etiam nova, quia vita moritur, scilicet Christus. Unde in Ioh.: 'ego sum via, veritas et vita'. Item: 'quod factum est in ipso vita erat'. Item magnum, quia 'revixit'. Quod enim mortuus reviviscat quandoque visum est, sed quod se ipsum suscitet semper victurus, magnum prorsus et insolitum est. Unde in Apoc.: 'ego sum primus et novissimus [et vivus], et mortuus fui et ecce sum vivens in saecula saeculorum'. Et Augustinus in II Epistula ad Volusianum: »non oportebat ut deus faceret novum mundum, fecit autem nova in mundo. Homo enim ex virgine procreatus a morte in aeternam vitam resuscitatus in caelis forte potentius opus est, quam mundus«. Nec est mirandum quod illud quod ad litteram de filio prodigo dictum est et iniquo, de Christo exponimus, cum scriptum sit de Christo: 'et cum iniquis deputatus est'. Unde etiam Is.: 'deus posuit iniquitates omnium nostrum in eo'. <LW5:139>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
◊3◊ Ut autem quae primo coepimus congruentius exponamus, primo oremus. Augustinus autem docet in libro Soliloquiorum circa principium modum orandi dicens: »deus universitatis conditor, praesta mihi primum ut bene te rogem, deinde ut me agas dignum, quem audias, postremo ut me exaudias«. Bene enim orare est multum impetrare.
 
 
'Pascha nostrum' etc.
◊4◊ Videmus, quando mater infantem vult provocare ad comedendum et medicus infirmum ad sumendum medicinam, uterque utrumque commendat, quia opinio bona de his ut plurimum proficit, et talis imaginatio prima boni plus quandoque confert quam medicus per instrumenta. Unde visum est, ut ipsi referunt, quod gallina ex sola imaginatione quantum ad exteriorem dispositionem se transfiguravit in gallum. Unde volens nos provocare ad manducandum pascha, primo proponit eius excellentiam dicens: 'pascha nostrum' etc. Secundo recto ordine hortatur nos ad dignam receptionem tanti sacramenti: 'itaque epulemur', ut haec dictio 'itaque' teneatur adverbialiter, id est 'epulemur' secundum tanti sacramenti convenientiam. <LW5:140>
 
◊5◊ Primo ergo commendat hoc pascha, quia hoc tam corpus reficit quam animam. Unde in Ioh.: 'ingredietur', scilicet ad animae refectionem, 'et egredietur, et pascua inveniet'. De excellentia huius dicitur in libro Sapientiae quod habet 'in se omne delectamentum et omnis saporis suavitatem', 'deserviens uniuscuiusque voluntati'. Unde Augustinus in Sententiis Prosperi c. 3: »omnis perfectio ex Christo et in Christo est, ultra quem non habet spes quo se extendat. Finis fidelium Christus est, ad quem cum pervenerit currentis intentio, non habet quo amplius possit venire, sed habet in quo debeat permanere«. Sic de primo.
 
 
 
◊6◊ Nunc de secundo: 'itaque epulemur,' scilicet secundum convenientiam. Ut autem habeamus sacramenti excellentiam et commendationem et digne recipientium dispositionem, videamus quoad praesens tria circa ipsum, scilicet quibus hoc pascha paretur, secundo ubi, et tertio quid operetur.
 
◊7◊ De primo sciendum quod paratur pauperibus et mundas conscientias habentibus et mundum contemnentibus. <LW5:141> De primo Ps.: 'parasti in dulcedine tua pauperi, deus', et illud: 'edent pauperes' etc. - Glossa: pauperibus, id est mundi contemptoribus et humilibus - 'in dulcedine tua' - Glossa: »non saeculi, quae amara est«-. Unde Augustinus in epistula quadam ad Armentarium et Paulinam: »ibi labor, ubi multa quaeruntur et diliguntur, quibus adipiscendis et retinendis voluntas satis non est, iuxta te esse vero vita est, ipsa vero velle iustitia est. Vide: ubi labor est, ibi voluntas satis [non] est. Propter quod divinitus dictum est: 'in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis'. Ubi pax, ibi requies; ubi requies, ibi finis appetendi et nulla causa laborandi«.
 
 
 
 
◊8◊ Videtur autem quantum ad praesens duplex causa posse assignari cur Deus det 'humilibus gratiam', sicut scriptum est in canonica Iacobi et alibi. Si autem deus dat gratiam per partes, multo fortius in hoc sacramento, in quo latet fons gratiae. Et in <LW5:142> aliis litteris dicitur satis probabiliter quod omne continens quanto est bassius et inferius, tanto capacius. Unde anima quae debet capere hoc sacramentum, quanto est per humilitatem bassior, tanto dei capacior. Unde Augustinus: »Deus totus oculus est, totus manus est, totus pes«, quoad primum quia omnia speculatur, quoad secundum quia omnia operatur, quoad tertium quia ubique ens nusquam locatur. Unde si vult ipsum anima fidelis capere, oportet ut per humilitatem se aptet.
 
 
◊9◊ Item paratur secundo mundi contemptoribus propter duo. Unum quia secundum Augustinum omne metallum ex [at]tactu ignobilioris obfuscatur vel debilitatur, ut <LW5:143> aurum ex contactu argenti. Ergo videtur iniuria fieri deo, si ipsum aliquis recipiat amans mundum, quia ipsum ignobilitare quantum in ipso est videtur.
 
◊10◊ 'Parasti, deus'. Sic videtur a quo paratur, scilicet a deo. Nec mirum, quia videmus quia natura tota corrupta et infirma et limitata in tempore modico educit aliquod magnum et vivum ex humore attracto. Longe possibilius est ex virtute divina brevi tempore hoc sacramentum confici, cum quanto agens est fortius, tanto actus sit brevior, quemadmodum dicitur in aliis litteris. Unde dicit signanter: 'parasti, deus'.
 
 
 
◊11◊ Tertio paratur mundas conscientias habentibus. Unde in libro Num. dicitur Moysi quod qui immundi erant 'in secundo mense' celebrent Phase. Et in 1 Reg. David volenti sumere propter necessitatem 'panes propositionis': 'si pueri sint mundi'. Et in Matth. quod 'Ioseph accepto corpore' domini 'involvit illud in sindone munda'. Ergo mundis tantum paratur. Unde Dionysius in Ecclesiastica hierarchia c. 3 alludit themati nostro 'pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus': »ad sanctissimam venientes <LW5:144> immolationem purgari oportet ab extremis animae phantasiis et in similitudine ipsi, quantum possibile, advenire«. In signum huius etiam Christus lavit et mundavit pedes discipulorum, ut etiam contagia minima docerentur auferenda.
 
 
 
 
 
◊12◊ Ubi autem paretur, in Ezechiele ostensum est, utcumque 'in montibus excelsis Israel': 'ibi requiescunt', 'in locis pinguibus', 'in herbis virentibus' 'erunt pascua eorum' et[c.]
◊13◊ Nusquam melius [lacuna] a quibus nisi si videamus quid de hac praeparatione requisitus dicebat: ubi 'vis eamus' parare 'pascha'? Marcus dicit quod 'misit duos de discipulis' etc. Lucas dicit quod 'Petrum et Iohannem' etc. usque: 'et ibi parate'. Petrus interpretatur »agnoscens«, ergo agnitio sui ipsius et infirmitatis propriae est unum quod praemittitur ad parandum. Unde ad Cor.: 'probet autem se ipsum homo' etc. Unde Augustinus De trinitate l. IV in principio: »scientiam terrestrium atque <LW5:145> caelestium rerum magni aestimare solet genus humanum, in quo profecto meliores sunt qui huic scientiae proponunt nosse semet ipsos. Unde probabilior laudabiliorque est animus cui infirmitas propria nota est quam qui ea non respecta vias siderum scrutatur, etiam cogniturus«. Unde Adam volebat multam rapere scientiam et perdidit eam. Et Albertus saepe dicebat: »hoc scio sicut scimus, nam omnes parum scimus«. Unde reprehendendi sunt qui praesumunt de scientia talium et suam conscientiam negligunt. Unde Augustinus in libello De disciplina christiana convincit ex hoc quod multi plus diligunt tunicam quam animam et mortem quam vitam, quia probatio est ab anima. Unde dicit: »amas tunicam bonam, eam vis, amas domum bonam, eam vis« etc. »Denique etiam ipsam mortem bonam vis et exoptas. Ergo si non amas bonam vitam vel animam, eam non vis. Times male mori, time male vivere. Non potest male mori, qui bene vixerit. Iterum confirmo, audacter et securus dico: non potest« etc. <LW5:146>
 
 
 
 
 
 
◊14◊ Praemisit etiam Iohannem, qui interpretatur »in quo est gratia«, quia ex cognitione propriae infirmitatis consurgit humilitas et gratia. Quicumque vero est superbus, non est sciens. Unde in proverbiis Ptolemaei: »qui inter sapientes est humilior, inter eos est sapientior«. 'Humiliatio tui in medio tui' dicitur in Michaea. Si te intus cognoscas, te humiliabis frequenter.
Ergo ibant simul Petrus et Iohannes. Unde in Ioh.: 'currebant duo simul' etc. Petrus ergo primus exivit, sed Iohannes praecucurrit, quia illic elevat gratia, ubi non attingit natura. Petrus ergo et Iohannes praeparant. Unde Augustinus in libro De gratia et libero arbitrio dicit: »deus cooperando in nobis perficit quod operando incipit. Operatur in nobis incipiens ut velimus, cooperatur volentibus perficiens, operatur ut homo velit, cooperatur ut frustra non velit«.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
◊15◊ Misit ergo duo dicens: 'ite in civitatem', quia in hac sacra[menti] perceptione debet esse collectio desideriorum unitorum in deum. Unde civitas dicitur »quasi <LW5:147> civium unitas« in qua paratur pascha. Unde Dionysius ubi supra, cur dicatur hoc sacra[mentum] communio vel synaxis, dicit: »unaquaeque sacra perfectiva actio partitas nostras vitas in uniformem deificationem colligit et divisarum deiformem complicationem et communionem donat«. Unde si hoc facit quaevis sacra actio, longe facit hoc sacra[mentum]. Unde nomen 'communionis' merito datur huic sacramento. Civitas importat nomen munitorum. Unde Ps.: 'Quis deducet me in civitatem munitam?' Quia ibi stillat fons omnium gratiarum.
 
 
 
◊16◊ Cum ergo paretur hoc pascha humilibus, mundi contemptoribus et mundis, non est mirum si febricitantibus ardore mundialium non sapit, quia est 'grande'. Unde: 'cenaculum grande, stratum; ibi parate'. Unde Augustinus in libro Confessionum VII: »quid autem sacramenti haberet 'verbum caro factum est', nec suspicari <LW5:147> poteram«, dixit de se ipso, nec mecum portabam nisi memoriam plenam mundanis. Post invenit »non esse mirum quod oculis aegris odiosa est lux quae sanis est amabilis et infirmo palato gravis est cibus qui sano est dulcis«. Et sequitur: »inveni me esse longe a te tamquam audirem vocem tuam de excelso: 'cibus sum grandium; cresce et manducabis me'. Non tu mutabis me in te sicut cibum carnis tuae, sed tu mutaberis in me«. Unde inter corporalia haec est differentia et spiritualia, quia corporalia sustinent in se contenta; non sic spiritualia, immo anima contenta in corpore ipsum continet. Et sicut cibus quanto purior, tanto citius et melius trahitur ad intima membrorum, sic quanto homo est purior, per hoc pascha incorporatur Christo. Et dicit post Augustinus ibidem: »audivi, sicut auditur in corde, ita ut prorsus non esset unde dubitarem faciliusque me dubitarem vivere quam hoc audire«. Unde in Ioh.: 'qui manducat carnem meam etc. in me manet'; et: 'qui manet in me, et ego in eo, hic fert fructum multum'. Quem ipse nobis dominus concedat. Amen.
Br. Eckhart, lector of the Sentences.
On the day of the Resurrection.
Our Passover lamb has been sacrificed, Christ. Let us therefore celebrate, so [1]Cor. [5:7-8]. Yet, it was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive, in Luke [15:32]
◊1◊ This pre-subject corresponds, as it seems, directly with the main topic and today’s feast. Namely, as Marcus Tullius [Cicero] whom Augustine praised amongst all rhetoricians, writes both in the old as in the new rhetoric, that amongst others there are four things that are most eagerly listened to, namely those which of the proposed things are directed towards individuals, are incredible because they are astonishing, are new because they are unfamiliar and great because they are supernatural. These four things are touched upon in those words which are placed second and which today the church is dealing with, because they touch upon individuals – this is noted when he, namely Christ, says ‘your brother’; moreover they are incredible, because they are most astonishing, as it is proposed that ‘God’ who is ‘an intelligible’ and an incomprehensible ‘sphere, who’s centre is everywhere and the circumference nowhere’, is consumed in the form of bread – that is why ‘it was fitting to celebrate and be glad’; moreover, they are new, namely that life dies – that is why [it is said he] ‘was dead’; and great – ‘and is alive’ –, because the dead has been restituted to life, namely by his own power, so that he will live in eternity.
◊2◊ On the first [topic]: It is about you! Therefore [we read] in Gen. [37:27]: Our brother, namely, is also flesh and also This now is bone of my bones etc. This is proposed in the form of bread, and it is incredible. Therefore [we read] in Isa. [53:1], and it is been placed into the Letter to the Romans [10:16]: Lord who has believed what he has heard from us? As if he were saying: these are incredible things. It is, however, said: heard from us, because, indeed, faith comes from hearing [Rom. 10:17], or rather because the intellect is emptied out in the sacrament of the altar, while vision, taste and other senses are captivated, and unbound hearing alone escapes and tells us the truth. Therefore one can say that [verse] from Job [1:15]: I have alone escaped to tell you. They are also new, because life dies, namely Christ. Therefore, [we read] in Jn. [14:6]: I am the way, the truth and life. And also: That was made, in him was life. [It is] also great, because it is alive. Namely that the dead has come alive has sometimes been seen, but that he raised himself to live for ever, is absolutely great and unfamiliar. Therefore [we read] in Rev. [1:17-8]: I am the first and the newest [and the living one], I died, and behold I am alive forevermore. And Augustine [writes] in the Second Letter to Volusian: ‘There was no need for God to create a new world, but he made new things in the world. Namely the human being who was procreated out of the virgin, resuscitated from death to eternal life in heaven, is probably a more powerful work than the world’. And is it not astonishing that what is literally said of the prodigal and unfavourable son [see Luke 15:11-32] we refer in our exposition to Christ, when it is written of Christ: And he was numbered with the transgressors [Luke 22:37]? And also in Isa. [53:6]: God has laid on him the iniquity of all of us.
◊3◊ In order, however, for us to explain more consistently with what we first began with, let us first pray. Augustinus, however, teaches in the book of the Soliloquies on the principle of how to pray: ‘God, the founder of the universe, first grant me that I ask you in the right way, then that you make me worthy, the one you listen to, so that finally you hear me’. To pray in a good way, namely, means to ask for a lot.
Our Passover lamb etc.
◊4◊ We see, how much a mother wants to call forth a child to eat and a doctor the patient to take the medicine, and both make their respective commendation, because a good opinion of these things are most useful, and such a first intimation confers often more benefit than the doctor through his instruments. From which one can see, as they [the doctors] relate that a chicken through intimation alone changed itself from the outside look into a coq. As he [Paul] wants to make us eat the Paschal lamb, he first sets in front of us its excellence: Our Paschal lamb etc. According to right order, he secondly exhorts us to a worthy reception of such a sacrament: Let us therefore celebrate, whereby the term therefore is taken as an adverb, i.e. let us celebrate according to the convention of such a sacrament.
◊5◊ First, therefore, he commends this Paschal lamb, because this renewes the body as much as the soul. Therefore [we read] in Jn. [10:9]: He will go in, namely to the renewal of the soul, and go out and find pasture. On the excellence of this it is said in the book of Wisdom [10:20-1] that he has ‘in himself all delights and sweetness of taste’, ‘pleasing each individual likes’. Therefore, Augustine [writes] on the Sentences of Prosper, ch. 3: ‘All perfection is from Christ and in Christ, above which hope has nothing to go for. The end of the believer is Christ, to whom, when the one who with intent is running to him and has reached him has nothing more to which he can come, but he has where he needs to remain’. So far about the first topic.
 ◊6◊ Now about the second: Let us therefore celebrate, namely according to convention. So that we may have the excellency, the commendation and the disposition of the worthy recipent of the sacrament, let us look at present at three topics concerning it, namely for whom this Paschal lamb is been prepared, second where and third who acts.
◊7◊ On the first one has to know that it is prepared for the poor, for those who have a clean conscience and who contempt the world. On the first [we read in] the Ps. [67:11; 21:27]: You prepared in your sweetness for the poor, God, and the other [verse]: The poor ate etc. The Glosse [has]: For the poor, i.e. for those who contempt the world and are humble. In your sweetness, the Gloss [has]: not in this saeculum, as it is bitter. Therefore, Augustine [writes] in a certain Letter to Armentarius and Paulina: ‘There is labor, were many things are wished and loved, which to achieve or retain, there is not enough will, while true life is to be with you, to wish for this, indeed, is justice’. See: where labor is, there is [not] enough will. For this reason the divine is said [Luke 2:14]: On earth peace among those human beings of good will. Where peace is, there you rest; where you rest, there is the end of longing and there is no reason to labor.
◊8◊ It seems, however, that, at present, one can assign to reasons to why God gives grace to the humble, as it is written in the canonical Letter of James [4:6] and elsewhere [1Peter 5:5; see Prov. 3:34]. If, however, God gives grace in parts, so much more in this sacrament, in which the source of grace is hidden. And in other writings it is even more made more probable that the deeper and lower any container is, the more it can contain. Therefore, the more the soul which should hold this sacrament is deeper through humility, the more she can contain of God. Therefore, Augustine [writes]: ‘God is all ye, all hand, all feet’, the first, because he sees everything, the second, because he acts everything, the third, because he is everywhere, but has no location. Hence, if the believing soul wants to contain him, it needs to adapt to him through humility.
◊9◊ And it is prepared for those who contempt the world for two reasons. The first, because according to Augustine any metal through mixture with a less noble metal is obfuscated or reduced in value, such as gold mixed with silver. Therefore, God sems to be injured, if someone receives him who loves the world, because he obscures him, to the extent he is in him [God].
◊10◊ You prepared […] God [Ps. 67:11; 21:27]. Here one can see by whom it is prepared, namely by God. It is not astonishing, because we observe that nature which is totally corrupt, weak and limited, in moderate time brings forth, pulled from the ground, something great and alive. By far it is more likely that out of divine power in short time this sacrament can achieve it, as the more powerful the agent is, the quicker the action is, on which there is more said in other writings. Therefore, he says more clearly: You prepared […] God [Ps. 67:11; 21:27].
◊11◊ Third, it is prepared for those who have a clean conscience. Therefore, it is said by Mose in the book of Num. [9:10-1] that those who are in the world should celebrate Passover in the second month. And in 1Kgs. [21:6.4] when David out of necessity wanted to take the showbreads [he was told]: if the children are clean. And in Matth. [27:59] [it is written] that Joseph took the body of the Lord [and] wrapped it in a clean linen shroud. Hence, it is only prepared for the clean. Therefore, Dionysius alludes to our theme Our Passover lamb has been sacrificed, Christ in ch. 3 of the Church Hierarchy: ‘It is necessary for those who come to the most holy sacrifice to be cleansed from the last phantasies of the soul and to arrive, as much as possible, as a similitude of it. As a sign of this, also Christ washed and cleansed the feet of the disciples [see John 13:5], in order to teach that also the slightest existing taint should be removed.
◊12◊ Where, however, it is been prepared, is shown in Ezechiel [34:14]: whenever, in the highest mountains of Israel, there they will rest, in fat places, amongst green grass their pasture will be etc.
◊13◊ Nowhere better [lacuna], of whom, if we do not see what he said when asked about that preparation: where do you want us that we go to prepare the Passover lamb? Mark [14:12-3] says that he sent two of the disciples etc. Luke says that it was Peter and John etc. to and there prepared. Peter can be interpreted as the one who knows. Hence, knowing oneself and ones weakness is the property of the one who is sent to do the preparation. Therefore [it is said] in [1]Cor. [11:28]: Let a person examen himself etc. Therefore, Augustine [writes] in the beginning of book 4 of On the Trinity: ‘The species of human beings do esteem the knowledge of earthly and heavenly things, in which those are more advanced who prefer to know themselves to this knowledge. Therefore, the soul is more commendable and laudible to whom its own weakness is is known than the one which ignores it and explores the moves of the stars, even if they will know them’. Thus, Adam wanted to grab great knowledge and lost it. And Albert [the Great] often said: ‘This I know, as we know, because we all know very little’. Hence, those are to be reprehended who presume great knowledge and neglect their conscience. Therefore, Augustine in the booklet On Christian Discipline is persuasive by the argument that many prefer the tunic to the soul, and death to life, because the probation derives from the soul. Therefore, he says: ‘You love a good tunic, you wish for it, you love a nice house, and you wish for it’ etc. ‘At last, you even wish and hope for a good death. Hence, if you do not wish for a good life or soul, you do not wish for it [a good death]. The one who lived well, cannot die badly. And again, I confirm and say more audaciously and strongly: He cannot’ etc.
◊14◊ He also sends forth John who can be interpreted as ‘in whom is grace’, because out of cognition of one’s own weakness co-emerges humility and grace. Who, indeed, is arrogant, does not know. Therefore [it is written] in the Proverbs of Ptolemee: ‘Who amongst the wise is more humble, is amongst them the more wise’. Your humiliation will be in your midst, is said in Micha [6:14]. If you know your inside, you humiliate yourself more frequently.
Hence, Peter and John went together. Therefore [it is written] in Jn. [20:4]: Both of them were running etc. Peter, therefore, went out first, but John came first, because grace elevates in that place, where nature cannot reach to. Hence, both Peter and John prepare. Therefore, Augustine says in the book On Grace and Free Will: ‘God brings about in us through cooperation what he initiated through operation’. It was operated in us to begin with, so that we wished for, but there was cooperation with those who wished for in the bringing about, it was operated, so that the human being wished for, it was cooperated, so that one does not wish for in vain’.
◊15◊ Hence, he sends two, saying: Go into the city, because in this perception of the sacrament, there needs to be a collection of the united wishes in God. Therefore city means as much as the one citizenship in which the Paschal lamb is prepared. Thus, Dionysius says at the place, mentioned above, why this sacrament is called a communion or gathering: ‘Each one holy perfecting action brings our divided lifes together into a uniform deification and gives godlike coherence and communion to what is divided’. Hence, if this is the result of any holy action, so much more is done by this sacrament. For right, therefore is the name of ‘communion’ given to this sacrament. Citiy also implies the idea of ‘fortifications’. Supported by Ps. [59:11]: Who leads me into the fortified city. Because, there, the fountain of all grace flows.
◊16◊ As, then, this Paschal lamb is prepared to the humble, those who contempt the world and those who are clean, it is not astonishing, if it is not esteemed by those who ardently fever for worldly things, because it is great. Therefore [it is written in Mark  14:15]: A great furnished upper room; there prepared. Hence, Augustine in book 7 of the Confessions says of himself: ‘I could, however, not suspect what sacrament the [verse] would carry “the word was made flesh”, and so I could not take it with me, except in an entirely worldly memory’. Later, he found it ‘not astonishing that light is hated by weak eyes, which is likeable for the healthy ones, and food which for the the poorly is heavy, is sweet for the healthy’. And it follows: ‘I found myself far away from you, as if I heard your voice from above: “I am food of the great ones; grow and you will eat me.” You will not transform me into you, like food into your flesh, but you will be transformed into me’. Hence, there is this difference between corporeal and spiritual things, because corporeal ones have the content in them; this is not so with the spiritual ones, on the contrary, the soul that is contained in the body, itself contains him. And just as the purer food is, the quicker and better it is taken into the body parts so also the purer a human being is, it will be incorporated into Christ through this Paschal lamb. And Augustine says at the same place a bit later: ‘I hear, as it is heard in the heart, so that there was therefore not the slightest doubt, and it would have been easier for me to doubt that I am alive than to hear this’. Hence, [it is written] in Jn. [6:57]: Whoever eats my flesh etc. will remain in me, and [John 15:5] who will remain in me, and I in him, this one will bear much fruit. That the Lord himself may concede this to us. Amen.