Homily 3 of Amphilochius of Iconium: ‘On the Four-day {Dead} Lazarus’ An Essay in Interpretation

NOTES

• As far as the Greek Fathers are concerned, some of the main contributors are, apart from Amphilochius, John Chrysostom, Hesychius of Jerusalem, Basil of Seleucia, Leontius of Constantinople, Leontius of Arabissus, Andrew of Crete and Theophanes Cerameus. One should also include in this list the two kontakia on this subject by Romanus Melodus, since the kontakion is in essence a homiletic hymn. For other homilies on the resurrection of Lazarus, see further W. Puchner, Studien zum Kulturkontext der Liturgischen Szene. Lazarus und Judas als religiŏse Volksfiguren in Bild und Brauch, Lied und Legende Südosteuropas, Vol. I, Vienna, 1991, 20.
   Google Scholar
• For the celebration of the Saturday of Lazarus in Jerusalem, see Itinerarium Aegeriae 29.1–6 (ed. Pétré, SC 21).
   Google Scholar
• Amphilochius was a contemporary of John Chrysostom. From the latter's hand we have several homilies on the Resurrection of Lazarus, but it is not possible to tell whether they were written before homily 3 of Amphilochius.
   Google Scholar
• C. Datema, Amphilochii Iconiensis Opera, Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 3, Leuven: Brepols, 1978, xiv.
   Google Scholar
• J. Quasten, Patrology, Vol. III, Utrecht: Spectrum, 297.
   Google Scholar
• Since this is not the main purpose of this paper, the references to the occurrences of these motives in subsequent homilies will naturally not be extensive.
   Google Scholar
• Datema, op. cit. xiv.
   Google Scholar
• Thus also Hesychius of Jerusalem (ed. Aubineau) xi.2.1–3, 9–10; xii.6.1ff., 9.1–3ff.; Basil of Seleucia (ed. Cunningham) xlviii.3.10–13; Leontius of Arabissus (ed. Uthemann) 4.1–2; 12.13ff.; and Andrew of Crete (PG 97.980C, 981 A,D).
   Google Scholar
• Reference throughout this paper is to the text edition of Datema, cited in note 4.
   Google Scholar
• Cf. Leontius Presbyter (ed. Datema-Allen) iii.311, where he uses the verbal form of this concept: τὴν δὲ ὰνάστασιν προηρραβωνίσατο.
   Google Scholar
• See J.P. Louw & E.A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1988, 61.8, 57.170–171 (Vol. 1, 577 and 611).
   Google Scholar
• See especially J. Kramer, Lazarus, Die Geschichte einer Auferstehung, Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 1985, 29.
   Google Scholar
• See also Hesychius (ed. Aubineau) xii.6.4–7; Basil of Seleucia (ed. Cunningham) 48.1.6–12, 2.3–6, 9–10; Andrew of Crete (PG 97.977A).
   Google Scholar
• The βασκανία of the Jews is also referred to by Andrew of Crete (PG 97.961A, 977A).
   Google Scholar
• In this vein also Hesychius (ed. Aubineau) xii.7, and Leontius Presbyter (ed. Datema-Allen) ii.388ff.
   Google Scholar
• Thus also Leontius Presbyter (ed. Datema-Allen) ii.334: “Κύριε”, πούύπάγεις; Γέλως γινόμεθα.
   Google Scholar
• In discussing the next topos, namely the unique character of the raising of Lazarus from the dead, Amphilochius refers to the fact that the Jews could slander all the other miracles of Jesus, except the raising of Lazarus. The verb σνκοϕαντέω, used extensively by Amphilochius in par. 1, is also echoed by Basil of Seleucia in his homily on the raising of Lazarus (hom. xlviii. 1.6ff., ed. Cunningham): οί μὲν γὰρ ὄμμασιν όρώντες τὰ θαύματα σνκοϕαντίᾳ καλύπτειν ὲμηχανώντο, κα ϕθόνῳ πληττόμενοι…
   Google Scholar
• For this interesting point of view in modern interpretation, see now also D.J. Bretherton, ‘Lazarus of Bethany. Resurrection or Resuscitation?’, The Expository Times 10 (1993), 169–173.
   Google Scholar
• Thus also Basil of Seleucia (ed. Cunningham) xlviii.6.3–4, 20–23; Leontius Presbyter (ed. Datema-Allen) ii. 362–364; and Andrew of Crete (PG 97.976C). Leontius of Arabissus (ed. Uthemann) 9.1–7 states that Jesus wept because of sinful mankind as a whole!
   Google Scholar
• For this ύποψία see also Hesychius (ed. Aubineau) xii.6.8 and Andrew of Crete (PG 97.961C, 964D).
   Google Scholar
• See Cl. 3:1–4, and also e.g. John Chrysostom, PG 50, 642 (On the Four-day Dead Lazarus): κα άνθρωπίνοις ἔτι λογισμοίς ιπιζομένονς κα τρέμοντας, said of the fears of the disciples when confronted by the reference of Jesus to his passion.
   Google Scholar
• Also present in Hesychius (ed. Aubineau) xii.2.1–9, and Leontius Presbyter (ed. Datema-Allen) ii.336ff.
   Google Scholar
• Is Amphilochius reflecting objections against the miracles of Jesus from the Jews of his own times? For it is only in the case of the healing of the blind man that the Fourth Gospel refers to doubt on the part of the Jewish leaders concerning a miracle of Jesus, namely whether the man who was cured of his blindness was in fact the same man who was born blind—see Jn. 9:9.
   Google Scholar
• See Leontius Presbyter (ed. Datema-Allen) ii.335–338: Тὸν υίὸν τής χήρας ὰνέστησας, δέσποτα, έπειδὴ πρόσϕατος ήν ὀ νεκρὀς κα ἔτι ἠ ψυχὴ αὺτοὺ είς το σώμα περιεπέτατο κα ή σόρξ νοτίδα θερμότητος έκέκτητο.
   Google Scholar
• The verb τρυγωνίξω is not listed in either LSJ or PGL. In Sophokles it is equated with τρύγω = φρύγω = to parch.
   Google Scholar
• The mere fact that he was buried in a cave, with a huge stone covering the tomb; that many Jews came to console Mary and Martha, and the fact that Jesus visited them frequently confirm this assumption of Amphilochius.
   Google Scholar
• According to ancient beliefs the soul departed finally from the body after three days, and decomposition then sets in—see Leontius Presbyter (ed. Datema-Allen) ii. 335–338, quoted in note 24, as well as Kramer, op. cit. 63, and note 73 for relevant passages.
   Google Scholar
• Notice the play on words in λόγους—προϕασιλογίας.
   Google Scholar
• See Hesychius (ed. Aubineau) xii. 3.1–3; Basil of Seleucia (ed. Cunningham) xlviii. 9.8–10.7; Leontius Presbyter (ed. Datema-Allen) iii. 272–277, and Andrew of Crete (PG 97.981 A).
   Google Scholar
• Cf. i.a. Hesychius (ed. Aubineau) xii. 5; Basil of Seleucia (ed. Cunningham) xlviii. 12; Leontius Presbyter (ed. Datema-Allen) iii. 262–302, and Romanus Melodus (ed. Grosdidier de Matons) hymns 26.γ.6ff., and 27.θff.
   Google Scholar
• Scholars very often ascribe to a particular author traits that are in fact common to most of the Patristic and Byzantine authors, as for example the extensive use of real or fictitious dialogue, and the use of many rhetorical figures and specific expressions.
   Google Scholar
• Echoed by Leontius Presbyter (ed. Datema-Allen) ii.300: τὴ λύπη μεθύεις.
   Google Scholar
• Leontius Presbyter (ed. Datema-Allen) iii.323, uses a similar expression for the disciples' lack of understanding, when Jesus told them that Lazarus was sleeping: Οί δὲ άπόστολοι άνθρωπινώτερον άκούσαντες κτλ.
   Google Scholar
• Μυρίζειν retlects μύρου νάρδου … τό μύρον of Jn. 12:3, 5.
   Google Scholar
• The antithesis is emphasized by means of the structural pattern of the statement. There is also a hint at the same kind of metaphorical use of μύρον in Leontius Presbyter (ed. Datema-Allen) ii. 348–349, and Andrew of Crete (PG 97.977D).
   Google Scholar
• See also Andrew of Crete (PG 97, 961): ού γὰρ ἤδεσαν τὸ πραγματευόμενον, said of the disciples' ignorance when Jesus called upon them that they should return to Judea (i.e. Bethany); also Proclus hom. 1.ς (ed. Schwartz): άλλοις ὲπραγματεύσατο τὸ άθάνατον.
   Google Scholar
• The author of the Fourth Gospel distinguishes between two groups: he first refers to the Jews, and then states: some of them said: Could he not have etc. Amphilochius ignores this and ascribes both statements to one and the same group (4.98–102), referring to them merely as οί άκολουθούντες όχλοι See also under (b).
   Google Scholar
• Mt. 17:20; Amph. 4. 112–113. See further Leontius Presbyter (ed. Datema-Allen) ii. 367–372, who also refers to this saying of Jesus directed to his disciples.
   Google Scholar
• Thus also Basil of Seleucia (ed. Cunningham) xlviii.8; Leontius Presbyter (ed. Datema-Allen) ii. 373–376; and Andrew of Crete (PG 97.977C). Interesting is the view of Leontius of Arabissus (ed. Uthemann) 11, who explicitly says that Jesus commanded not the Jews to remove the stone, but the disciples!
   Google Scholar
• This has already been anticipated by Amphilochius in 1.40–2.47, where he refers to the fact that the Jews could not belie the resurrection of Jesus owing to his divine πραγματεία—for He tarried on purpose, and came to Bethany only after Lazarus was already four days in the tomb—thus to make sure that they would be witnesses to a miracle they could not question and doubt.
   Google Scholar
• Thus also Hesychius (ed. Aubineau) xii.4, and Basil of Seleucia (ed. Cunningham) xlviii.9.4–7, 11.1–5.
   Google Scholar
• For this πάς-motive see J.H. Barkhuizen, ‘Πάς as religious concept in early Christian hymns’, Ekklesiastikos Pharos 73 (1991), 27–35.
   Google Scholar
• For this antithesis—that Jesus was physically absent but present in his divinity—see also Leontius Presbyter (ed. Datema-Allen) iii. 331–332: ὄτικα ώδε κὰκεί κα πανταχοὺ; Romanus Melodus (ed. Grosdidier de Matons) hymn 26. η 1–4, 27. γ5: ό άε παρὼν ὲν πάσι; and especially Andrew of Crete (PG 97.968): Ούκ ής ὲκεί, ό πανταχοὺ παρὼν, κα τὰ πάντα πληρών τή θεότητι; and: άλλ' ού κατὰ τὸ σώμα, κατὰ δὲ τὀ θείκὀντἠς δόξης άξίωμα, and 97.972: Κα γὰρ ήν, κα παρἲν, κα πάρεστι πανταχού … ὸ πάντα πληρών τἠ θεότητι.
   Google Scholar
• See also Leontius Presbyter (ed. Datema-Allen) ii.322–327.
   Google Scholar