Chapter 4

The Gothic Intellectual
Community:  The Theology
of the Skeireins

James W. Marchand

These eight leaves have undergone all the misfortunes a manuscript could, mostly at the hands of scholars.  When found by Angelo Mai, they had already been torn from their original manuscript, so that no two leaves follow one another;  they had been washed and scraped, and the original Gothic had been written over with Latin texts, the fate of all Gothic manuscripts except the Codex Argenteus.  In his zeal to decipher them, Angelo Mai smeared or rather soaked them with nut-gall, a common practice in the day.⁴  As is known, this treatment renders manuscripts fairly illegible to the next reader.⁵

To compound the felony Ehrle, in his zeal to protect the now damaged Vatican leaves, smeared them with gelatin (glycerin), thus rendering them impervious to ultra-violet rays, our best method of making them available to modern readers.  A worse fate awaited them at the hands of philologists, however.  In his admittedly incomplete count made about 1950, Bennett found that, in a text of 800 lines, averaging 13 letters per line, over 1,500 emendations had been proposed.⁶  In Cromhout’s edition alone, 940 words are deleted.⁷ In my discussion, I shall simply follow The manuscript readings. as far as possible, so as to avoid interpreting modern interpretations.

It is, however, in The matter of source criticism and what can only be called Parallelenjägerei (chasing after parallels) that the greatest crimes have been committed, and one has only to look at the sources and parallels cited by Dietrich,⁸ the latest editor to deal intensively with such things, to see how far one can go, where parallels such as anagkêi theikêi ({ἀνάγκῃ θεϊκῄ} by divine power) are cited (here as parallel to waldufnia gudiskamma [by divine authority], though the parallel text cited by Theodor of Herakleia, has exousiâi theikêi [{ἐξουσίᾳ θεϊκῄ} by divine power]).  Nowadays, by the use of the Thesaurus Linguæ Græcæ database, one could find many examples of “by divine power”.⁹  A parallel Dietrich does not cite, for example, is koinos pantôn Sôtêr ({κοινός πάντων Σωτήρ} common Savior of all), from Athanasius, De incarnatione, par. 21.  This is a perfect analogue for gamains allaize nasjands (la 6) (note the word order).  So frequently, the understanding of the text is impaired by failure to place it in its context, leading inevitably to an impoverished reading.  George P Landow’s remark on the failure to embed earlier literature in its ambience is particularly appropriate here:

Although it is a commonplace that we have lost the intimate knowledge of the Bible which characterized literate people of the last century, we have yet to perceive the full implications of our loss.  In the Victorian period — to go back no further — any person who could read, whether or not he was a believer, was likely to recognize scriptural allusions.  Equally important, he was also likely to recognize allusions to typological interpretations of the scriptures.  When we modern readers fail to make such once common recognitions we deprive many Victorian works of a large part of their context.  Having thus impoverished them, we then find ourselves in a situation comparable to that of the reader trying to understand a poem in a foreign language after someone has gone through his dictionary deleting important words.  Ignorant of typology, we under-read and misread many Victorian works, and the danger is that the greater the work, the more our ignorance will distort and inevitably reduce it.¹⁰

My intention is to discuss only two leaves (I and III) of the Skeireins, with the intention of placing the work in context — which in this case largely comprises patristic exegesis — in an attempt to understand it and to situate it in its place in history, to read it as a fourth or fifth-century text.

It may be cause for surprise that I am writing on the Skeireins in a book devoted to “The Making of Christian Communities”.  I am, however, using “community” in the way in which it is most commonly used in the present-day media, and discussing the Gothic intellectual community.  This in itself will probably cause still more surprise, for we do not usually use the word “intellectual” when speaking of Goths;¹²  nor did one in the fourth century, where it was common to say such things as krazein hôs Gotthôn {κράζειν ὡς Γότθων} (shout like a Goth).  This is, however, one of the most striking aspects of the Goths, namely, the rapidity with which they learned the intellectual fare of their day, patristic exegesis.  St Jerome, in his famous letter to Sunnia and Frithila, two Goths who challenged his translation of Psalms in a number of passages, and whose corrections he occasionally accepted, said trenchantly (my translation):

To My Beloved Brethren Sunnia and Fretela and to the others who are serving the Lord with you, Jerome.

1. Truly these apostolic and prophetic words have been fulfilled in you:  “Their sound hath gone forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world (Ps 18.5; Rom 10.18).”  Who would have believed that the barbarous language of the Goths would seek after the Hebrew truth (Hebraica veritas), and that, while the Greeks are indolent and contentious, very Germany would scrutinize the words of the Holy Spirit?  “In very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons;  But in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him (Act. 10.34-35)”.  The hands up to now hard from wielding the sword, and the fingers more fitting to handle the bow are softened to using the pen, and warlike hearts are turned to Christian gentleness.  Now we also see the prophecy of Isaiah fulfilled in deed:  “and they shall turn their swords into ploughshares and their spears into sickles (Isaiah 2:4)”.

Or as Ch S Revillout remarked, as quoted by Seardigli:  “Les Goths en théologie comme en tout le reste montraient une intelligence prompte et facile, une remarquable aptitude.”¹²  If the sometimes exaggerated reports of the Roman historians, in particular Jordanes, are to be believed, they also had a strong reverence for the Word.  In spite of occasional detractors, it can be said that the translation of the Greek Bible into Gothic by Wulfila, who devised an alphabet for the purpose,¹³ for those who wish to look closely, is a grand witness to the intellectual and spiritual force of the Apostle of the Goths.  The translation of the Lord's Prayer alone, with its careful disambiguation of the Greek basileia, nor always followed by more modern translators, reveals Wulfila's sensitive treatment of his material.  He deserved the universal respect and honor tendered him;  also worth remembering is his foster son, Auxentius, whose eloquence even impressed Ambrose, who disputed with him.

The history of the Goths, although occasionally murky and moot in individual details, is pretty much an open book.  The authorities vie with each other in relating this history, and we have been fortunate to have such authorities as Gibbon, Thompson and Bury to relate it to us.  We know that the Goths emigrated from Scandinavia around I AD, and I for one am willing to accept Oxenstierna’s argument that it was from Västergotland.¹⁴  They landed at the mouth of the Vistula, perhaps leaving us the name Danzig, moved south in various ways, finally appearing in Roman history in or about the year 247.  We may be able to trace them back as far as 350 BC.  Gothic archaeology is somewhat difficult to follow, but this picture seems fairly clear.  For the fourth and fifth centuries, the picture is very clear, and we can follow the political history of the Goths easily, with the problem of their spread being somewhat difficult.¹⁵

The religious and intellectual history of the Goths is another matter, however.  The historians seem to devote little time to such matters, and our first, perhaps even our major, problem is the discovery of sources.¹⁶  This frequently takes us far afield, into languages such as Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian and Hungarian, and into archaeology and philology, areas which both historians of religion and Gothic specialists are often ill-equipped to explore.

We know that Wulfila's forefathers (progonoi) came from the village of Sadagolthina at the foot of Mount Parnassus (on which see now Salaville¹⁷), and that they were captured by the Goths upon raids during the years 267-269. They were Christians and converted at least some of their captors.  We know a lot about Wulfila from the Church historians Socrates, Sozomen, Theodora and Philostorgius, all available in ready translation, and from the report by his foster-son, Auxentius, who disputed with Ambrose, as reported in the latter’s De fide, in a manuscript of which it is embedded.¹⁸

The history of the study of the “theology of the Skeireins is quickly told.  The first editor, Massmann, whose services to scholarship were outstanding, got us off on thy wrong foot.  He did what any scholar might well have done: he searched for fourth-century commentaries on the Gospel of John and found Balthasar Corderius, Catena Patrum græcarum in S Joannem ex antiquissimo græco codice nunc primam in lucem edita (Antwerp, 1630), not at all a bad choice, given Corderius’s well-known care.  On this he then based his source study, and came to the conclusion that the major source for the Skeireins was Theodorus of Heraclea’s Hermeneia, even basing the name Skeireins on this work, as noted above.  He ignored other commentaries on John not contained in Corderius, such as those of Chrysostom, Origen, Cyril of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopsuestia, as well as the rest of Greek and Latin patristics, which discussed the matters discussed by the skeireinist, often with reference to John, since the Goth was Arian, and these commentators were not.¹⁹  That this left us with a skewed picture is natural, and Massmann went even further.  In listing his parallels, he listed floscules which had nothing more to do with the Skeireins than the use of the same words.  As I pointed out above, with our present tools we can often find Massmann’s “sources” in literally hundreds of works, and, of course, we have a better work on the catenæ than that of Corderius in Reuss.²⁰  The century followed Massmann, however, being crowned by Dietrich’s Quellenuntersuchung (Source Criticism) with its “Parallelen aus der theologischen Tradition”, although Streitberg tried to reduce Dietrich’s list.²¹  He cites Ammonius, Cyril, Theodorus of Heraclea and Hahn’s Bibliothek der Symbole (Breslau, 1897).  Jellinek saw that this was no way to do source criticism.²²  He had already been (in 1891) the first to point out the influence of Ransom Theory, which he attributed to Irenæus, at least as the remote source.²³  He seems not to realize that Ransom Theory was held by almost all fourth-century theologians.

Bennett, with little comment, eschews references to patristic exegesis almost entirely:  “On these topics the present edition has nothing either new or original to offer, and there would be little to gain in reproducing the extensive material that is already available.”²⁴  This is pretty much where things stand at the moment, though a glance through the MLA online bibliography reveals a number of articles which touch on the skeireinist’s theology, as does Mossé’s Bibliographia gotica.²⁵

Let us begin with leaf III of the Skeireins, which reads, with an interlinear translation:

Sk 3a:1 … managa wesun jainar:

“… many were there;

Sk 3a:2 þaruh qemun jab daupidai wesun.

and they came there and were baptized.

Sk 3a:4 ni nauhhanuh galagiþs was in karkarai Iohannes:

John was not yet cast into prison.”

Sk 3a:7 þaruh qiþands aiwaggelista atatigida:

By saying that, the evangelist revealed

Sk 3a:10 ei so garehsns bi ins neƕa andja was:

that the plan concerning him (John) was near its end

Sk 3a12 þairh Herodes birunain:

through the scheming of Herod.

Sk 3a:14 akei faur þata at bajoþium daupjandam: jah ainƕaþarammeh seina anafilhandam daupein:

But that before this, both of them baptizing and each handing down his own baptism,

Sk 3a:19 miþ sis misso sik andrunnun:

they disputed with each other,

Sk 3a:21 sumai ni kunnandans ƕaþar skuldedi maiza:

some not knowing which was to be the greater.

Sk 3a:24 Þaþroh þan warþ sokeins us siponjam Iohannes miþ Iudaium bi swiknein:

Concerning this then arose a question between John’s disciples with the Jews concerning purification,

Sk 3b:4 in þizei ju jah leikis hraineino inmaidiþs was sidus:

because of the fact that now the custom of bodily cleansings had been changed,

Sk 3b:6 jah so bi guþ. hrainei anabudana was:

and the cleansing by God had been commanded.

Sk 3b:8 ni þanaseiþs judaiwiskom: ufarranneinim jah sinteinom daupeinim brukjan usdaujaina:

No longer should they endeavor to use the sprinklings and daily bathings of the Jews.

Sk 3b:13 ak Iohanne hausjandans þammna faurrinnandin aiwaggeljon:

but listening to John, the precursor in the Gospel.

Sk 3b:17 wasuh þan jah Frauja þo ahmeinon anafilhands daupein

For then the Lord was also handing down the spiritual baptism,

Sk 3b:20 eiþan garaihtaba warþ bi swiknein sokeins gawagida:

so that properly was a question moved concerning purification.

Sk 3b:23 unte witoþ þize unfaurweisane missadede ainaizos witoþ raidida:

For the Law concerning one of the sins of unwitting people

Sk 3c:1 azgon kalbons gabrannidaizos utana bibaurgeinais:

the ash of a heifer burned outside the camp

Sk 3c:5 afaruh þan þo in wato wairpandans hrain:

and after that casting it into clean water,

5k 3c:7 jah hwssopon jah wullai raudai ufartrusnjandans:

and sprinkling with it hyssop and red wool,

Sk 3c:10 swaswe gadob þans ufar miton munandane:

as was fitting for those thinking without intent.

Sk 3c:13 iþ Iohannes idreigos daupein merida:

But John was preaching a baptism of repentance,

Sk 3c:15 jah missadede afflet þaim ainfalþaba gawandjandam gahaihait:

and promised the forgiveness of sins for those simply reforming,

Sk 3c:19 iþ Fraujins. at afleta frawaurhte jah fragift weihis ahmins:

but as to the Lord, [He promised] forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit,

Sk 3c:22 jah fragibands im þatei sunjus þiudangardjos wairþaina:

and granting them that they might become sons of the Kingdom.

Sk 3d:1 swaei sijai daupeins Iohannes ana midumai twaddje ligandei.

So that the baptism of John was lying in the middle of the two,

Sk 3d:5 ufarþeihandei raihtis witodis hrainein:

going beyond, to be sure, the cleansing of the Law,

5k 3d:7 iþ minnizei filaus aiwaggeljons daupeinai:

but less by far than the Gospel’s baptism.

5k 3d:10 inuh þis bairhtaba uns laisei qiþands:

Concerning this he openly teaches us, saying:

5k 3d:13 akkan ik in watin izwis daupja:

I indeed baptize you in water,

Sk 3d:14 iþ sa afar mis gagganda: swinþoza mis ist

but he who comes after me is mightier than I,

Sk 3d:17 þizei ik ni im wairþs anahnewands: andbindau skaudaraip skohis is:

of whom I am not worthy that, kneeling, I might unbind the latchet of his shoe.

Sk 3d:21 sah þan izwis daupeiþ in ahmin weihamma:

He then will baptize you in the Holy Spirit.

Sk 3d:25 bi garehsnai nu …

Concerning the plan now …

Jellinek said that this leaf contained the most difficult passage in the Skeireins.  The problem lies to a great extent with us rather than with the text. It is important to notice that the “Red Heifer” of this treatment comes from the Hebrews rather than from Numbers, since it is often maintained that the Goths, as Arians, did not have the book of Hebrews.  Massmann, who saw that part of the text had to be from Hebrews, nevertheless maintained that the skeireinist had also had recourse to the passage from Numbers, since “outside the camp” is mentioned, and Hebrews does not mention it, according to him, and in this he is followed by later authorities, even Dietrich.  This is, of course, based on a misreading of the Hebrews, where the Red Heifer is being presented as the type of Christ.  Of course, as Jellinek said, we cannot expect Germanists to know about typology, since Schwietering and Curtius had not yet come along.  But one might expect them to read the text;  cf. Hebrews 13:11:  “For the bodies…are burned without the camp, wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.”  We will encounter this failure to read the record over and over again.  It is important also to note the typology, for it is often maintained that the Goths, as Antiochian critics, did not use typology and allegory.

Bennett, the only critic to treat the Red Heifer page extensively, could make little sense out of it and consulted a modern rabbi as to the rite of the Red Heifer.²⁶  This practice, whatever one thinks about a modern rabbi, has little to recommend it.  The Jewish rite of the Red Heifer is treated thoroughly, for example, in Bonsirven, and Maimonides has written a famous treatise on it.²⁷  Nevertheless, we must insist again with Massmann and Dietrich that it is the Red Heifer of Hebrews which is intended.  On it and sprinkling, see the article on rhantizê {ῥαντίζω “sprinkle, cleanse, purify”} and rhantismos {ῥαντισμός, οῦ, ὁ “a sprinkling, purification”} in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.  This article or the one in Hastings on the “Red Heifer” will suffice to indicate the nature of the Red Heifer rite in Judaism.  On the Red Heifer as a type of Christ, the fourth and fifth century exegetes offer a great deal of evidence. To show how easy it is nowadays to do what Jellinek was recommending, I downloaded the Ante- and Post-Nicene fathers from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library site (http://ccel.org) and searched through them with a browser (so-called GREP utility) for “heifer”.  This brought in a number of patristic parallels:  The Letter of Barnabas (I.142);  Chrysostom, On the Statutes (1st Ser. 9, 440 ff.);  Jerome, who in Lives of Illustrious Men, chapter LVII (p. 374) mentions that Trypho wrote a treatise on the Red Heifer;  and the following passage from Theodoret’s Dialogues:  “The image of the archetype is very distinctly exhibited by the lamb slain in Egypt, and by the red heifer burned without the camp, and moreover it is referred to by the Apostle in the Epistle to ihe Hebrews, where he writes ‘Wherefore Jesus also that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate’.”²⁸  Other parallels include Athanasius, Letter XIV on Easter (p. 542);  Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, lecture XIII (p. 91);  Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism (p. 363);  Basil, Letter CCLXV (p. 304);  Ambrose, Of the Holy Spirit, Book 1, Chap. VIII (p. 106;  not a close parallel).  The importance of all this is to show that the skeireinist is using the book of Hebrews, that he does use typology, and that he is simply in the mainstream.  This does not require much of a knowledge of the Fathers, but it does require some reading in the Ante- and Post-Nicene fathers, and some ingenuity.  if you have access to the Thesaurus Linguæ Græcæ, you can simply type in damal (for damalis, damaleôs {δάμαλις, δάμαλεως “young cow, calf”}), and you can find many more.  Or, in the Patrologia Latina, type in vacca or even vacca rufa.  This will prove that the skeireinist is offering us nothing new.  There is no need to look for sources;  indeed, sources merely cloud the issue;  there are no sources.  The skeireinist’s treatment of the Red Heifer is standard fare.

This bring us to the final leaf and the pièce de résistance, Leaf 1:

Sk 1a:1 nist saei fraþjai aiþþau sokjai guþ:

“There is none who understands or seeks God

Sk 1a:2 allai uswandidedun:

All have turned away

Sk 1a:4 samana unbrukjai waurþun:

together they have become useless”

Sk 1a:6 jah ju uf dauþaus atdrusun stauai:

and already they have fallen under the judgment of death

Sk 1a:8 inuh þis qam gamains allaize nasjands:

For this then there came a common savior of all

Sk 1a:10 allaize frawaurhtins afhrainjan:

to cleanse away the sins of all

Sk 1a:12 ni ibna nih galeiks unsarai garaihtein:

neither equal nor similar to our justice,

Sk 1a:15 ak silba garaihtei wisands:

but himself being justice

Sk 1a:17 ei gasaljands sik faur uns:

that, giving himself for us

Sk 1a:18 hunsl jas sauþ guda:

“an offering and a sacrifice to God”

Sk la:19 þizos manasedais gawaurhtedi uslunein:

he might work the redemption of this world.

Sk 1a:22 þata nu gasaiƕands Iohannes

John now seeing this:

5k 1a:24 þo sei ustauhana habaida wairþan fram fraujin garehsn

The plan which was to be carried out by the Lord,

Sk 1b:2 miþ sunjai qaþ:

with truth did say:

Sk 1b:3 sai sa ist wiþrus gudis.

Behold, this is the Lamb of God

Sk 1b:4 saei afnimiþ frawaurht þizos manasedais:

Who taketh away the sin of this world.

Sk 1b:6 mahtedi sweþauh jah inu mans leik. waldufnja þataine gudiskammma, galausjan allans us diabulaus anamahtai:

He could have, to be sure, even without (assuming) the body of man, by divine authority alone, released all from the tyranny of the devil.

Sk 1b:12 akei was kunnands þatei swaleikamma waldufnia mahtais seinaizos nauþs ustaiknida wesi:

But he was aware that by such authority the need for his power would be shown.

Sk ib:17 jan ni þanaseiþs fastaida garaihteins garehsns:

and that no longer the plan of justice would he kept,

Sk 1b:20 ak nauþai gawaurhtedi manne ganist:

but that by force he would have worked the salvation of men.

Sk 1b:22 jabai auk diabulau fram anastodeinai nih nauþjandin ak uslutondin mannan:

For, if the devil from the beginning (had worked) not by forcing, but by deluding man,

Sk 1c:1 jah þairh liugn gaƕatjandin ufargaggan anabusn:

and by lie persuading him to transgress the commandment,

Sk 1c:4 þatuh wesi wiþra þata gadob:

that would be against propriety

Sk 1c:5 ei frauja gimands mahtai gudiskai: jah waldufnja þana galausidedi:

if the Lord, coming with divine power, also with authority had released him,

Sk lc:9 jah nauþai du gagudein gawandidedi:

and by necessity converted him to godliness.

Sk 1c:11 nei auk þuhtedi þau in garaihteins gaaggwein ufargaggan:

For then would He not seem in the constraint of justice to transgress

5k 1c:14 þo faura ju us anastodeinai garaidon garehsn:

the plan already ordained from the beginning?

Sk 1c:16 gadob nu was mais þans swesamma wiljin ufhausjandans diabulau:  du ufargaggan anabusn gudis:

now it was more fitting those of their own will listening to the devil, to transgress the commandment of God,

Sk 1c:22 þanzuh aftra swesamma wiljin gaqissans wairþan nasjandis laiseinai:

those again by their own will to become assenters to the teaching of the Savior

Sk 1d:1 jah frakunnan unselein þis faurþis uslutondins ins:

and to despise the wickedness of the one who previously had deceived them,

Sk 1d:5 iþ sunjos kunþi du aftraanastodeinai þize in guda usmete gasatjan:

but to establish a knowledge of the truth for the resurrection of the way of life in God

Sk 1d:9 inuh þis nu jah leik mans andnam:

For this reason, then, he took on even the body of man,

5k 1d:11 ei laisareis uns wairþai þizos du guda garaihteins:

that He might become for us a teacher of justice according to God.

Sk 1d:14 swa auk skulda du galeikon seinai frodein:

For thus He would be in conformity with His Wisdom

Sk 1d:17 jah mans aftra galaþon waurdam jah waurstwam jah spilla wairþan aiwaggeljons usmete:

and invite man again by word and deed to become a proclaimer of the way of life of the Gospel

Sk 1d:22 iþ in þizei nu witodis gaaggwei ni þatain gawandeins…

but since now the restriction of the law not only conversion.

Before we look at this leaf, however, we need to ask what the fourth century thought of salvation, as Jellinek did in his “Zur Skeireins”.  Jellinek is the only Gothic specialist to treat the theology of our leaf.  One can understand his surprise at finding that W Krafft, a theologian, had missed the fact that the leaf deals with Ransom Theory.  Unfortunately, Jellinek was not familiar with patristics, so he could only cite a passage from Irenaeus he found in F Chr. Baur’s Die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung, a weak reed to lean upon.  Modern interpreters, such as Hastings Rashdall and Jean Rivière, are in a much better position, with a number of excellent books on the Atonement.²⁹

It is easy, however, to fabricate one’s own history, for the theory of the redemption known by its designation by Ambrose as the pia fraus was until Anselm not just the prevailing theory, but the only theory of the Redemption.  It may shock us as it did Rashdall, who continually calls it “monstrous, horrible”, and seeks over and over again to find it overthrown, and we may wish with Russell to be able to say:  “The idea of the trick faded, decisively rejected in the West by Augustine and in the East by Chrysostom.”³⁰  But both Augustine and Chrysostom are stout proponents of the “trick”, as was also Martin Luther.  Leo the Great summed up the pia fraus for his day:

For though the true mercy of God had infinitely many schemes to hand for the restoration of mankind, it chose that particular design which put in force for destroying the devil’s work, not the efficacy of might but the dictates of justice.  134.  And so it was no new counsel, no tardy pity whereby GOD took thought for men;  but from the constitution of the world He ordained one and the same Cause of Salvation for all.  For the grace of GOD, by which the whole body of the saints is ever justified, was augmented, not begun, when Christ was born:  and this mystery of GOD’s great love, wherewith the whole world is now filled, was so effectively presignified that those who believed that promise obtained no less than they, who were the actual recipients,

142. He was able to bring about solely by the power of His Godhead;  so as to rescue the creature that was made in the image of God from the yoke of his cruel oppressor.  But because the devil had not shown himself so violent in his attack on the first man as to bring him over to his side without the consent of His free will, man’s voluntary sin and hostile desires had to be destroyed in such wise that the standard of justice should not stand in the way of the gift of Grace.  And therefore in the general ruin of the entire human race there was but one remedy in the secret of the Divine plan which could succor the fallen, and that was that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression, to prevail for the rest both by His example and His merits.³¹

We see this same presentation over and over again, by all the fathers;  in fact a simple search for esca and hamus in the Patrologia Latina, or for delear, “bait”, and agkistron {ἄγκιστρον, ου, τό}, “fishhook”, in the Thesaurus Linguæ Græcæ, will yield a multitude of materials, for the fathers loved to put the pia fraus into terms of the bait of Christ’s body on the hook of the cross.  To cite just one example, from an anonymous fourth-century source found in PG 61.753-4 (my translation):

it is not from fear or horror of death that I say the words:  “Father, if it is possible, let this chalice pass from me (Mt. 26, 39)”.  I am rather speaking here a word of hidden secrecy.

This word is a bait for the devil;  with these words I must lure him to the hook.  The devil saw me do many miracles, as I with a bare touch of the hand cured sicknesses, how I with one word drove out legions of demons, how a sign of my hand with the quickness of a winnowing fan smoothed the sores of the lepers, how I with voice alone made the knees of the crippled firm, how I rebuked wind and sea and how everything obeyed me trembling.  By such deeds he had to notice that I am God’s Son, and had to consider that my death on the cross signified his demise, that my descent into the lower regions would break his iron bolts and burst his brazen gates (cf. Ps. 23.7-10).  Considering these things, he flees and hesitates to erect the precious cross, the sign of victory.  What am I then to do?  Like an experienced fisher I act cowardly, pretend to have fear of death and say:  “Father, if it is possible, let this chalice pass from me”.  Such words of hesitation are supposed to cause him to believe that I am only a fearful human being and would like to escape death, and are supposed to urge him to erect against me, as he sees it, the secret made of wood, the cross, in the midst of the earth.  I have to counter him with cunning, like an experienced fisher;  I have to bear everything for the sake of the life of all.  For since he from the beginning on aimed with cunning for the damnation of Adam, so will I all the more practice cleverness for the salvation of all.  With seductive words he seduced Adam, with divine words the betrayer will be fooled.  When the fisher throws the hook into the sea, but does not bait it and does not present the worm as fleeing by jerking it back now and again with his hand, the fish do not attack it.  I have clothed the hook of My divinity with the worm of my body.  Hidden in the bait of My body, I let the hook down into the depths of this life.  If the worm does not twist Like a worm, then the one who is to be caught does not approach the hook. And so I have to act like a worm.  “I am a worm and no man” (Ps 21.7), so that he will attack and bite on the hook and will be drawn out by Me, and then will be fulfilled the passage in Job (40.20):  “You will draw out the dragon with a hook”.  I act like a human being who is fearful and flees death.  I will say:  “My soul is troubled unto death (Mt. 26.38)”.  I will say:  “Father, if it is possible, let this chalice pass from me.”  And when that one hears this word, then he will silently rejoice and be glad.  For he is always alive to opportunities to work against Me.  When he hears:  “Father, if it is possible, let this chalice pass from me,” he will rejoice, and what will he say?  “Hah!  This One also is a human being!  I swallowed Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the patriarchs and the prophets.  I will swallow This One, too.  Just look!  He is cowardly like a human being, He IS a human being, I will swallow Him.”

Those who are familiar with the famous miniature of Herrad of Landsperg will recognize the picture, so well treated by Zellinger.³²

One of the most problematic things about “medieval man” is the fact of his belief in what St Thomas called epieikeia (fittingness);  this is what the skeireinist means by þata gadob.  It would have been contrary to epieikeia, justitia, for God to save man by divine power;  it was fit and proper for him to redeem mankind by a contrary trick:  “We need to remember how the first Adam was cast out of paradise into the desert, in order to think of how the Second Adam will return from the desert…  Thus, the hunger of the Lord is a pious trick (pia fraus).”³³  St Augustine insisted over and over that this must be done properly:  “Non potentia Dei, sed justitia superandus est (scil. diabolus)” (the devil is to he conquered not by the power of God, but by epieikeia, “rightness” {ἐπιείκεια, ας, ἡ “properiety, decency;  equity, fairness;  clemency”})³⁴

Space does not permit me to go into garehsns and the various translations of it.  It is obvious that it is Greek oikonomia {οἰκονομίᾱ, ᾱς, ἡ “household management;  economy”}, the plan of salvation which God proposed for mankind before all time, a commonplace of fourth and fifth century theology, as also later.  Suffice it to say that I must disagree with my hero, Jellinek, who says, concerning the scheme of salvation presented on Leaf I: “Von der allgemeinen theologischen Ansicht der Zeit weicht also der Skeireinist entschieden ab (The skeireinist thus definitely departs from the common theory)”.³⁵  There is nothing new or startling in the theology of the Skeireins;  it is just common fourth and fifth-century fare, where there is scarcely a theologian who does not espouse it.  It may seem surprising from a nineteenth-century standpoint, but it is just the same old hat to the fourth century.  The Goths may have advanced intellectually, but in theology they conformed.

Notes 171

(Notes 1-9a unavailable)

9. Authors and Works, 2nd. ed. (New York, 1986).  A list of works contained in the TLG database.

10. Landow, George P, “Moses Striking the Rock:  Typological Symbolism in Victorian Poetry”, in Literary Uses of Typology:  From the Late Middle Ages to the Present, ed. Earl Miner (Princeton, 1977), p. 315.

11. Haslag, Josef, “Gothic” im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, Cologne, 1963.

12. Scardigli, Piergiuseppe, “La conversione dei Goti al cristianesimo” in La conversione al cristianesimo nell” Europa dell” alto medioevo”, Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull” Alto Medioevo, 14 (Spoleto, 1967):  “Inventario”, 49-57, which Professor Fontaine (p. 482) found so useful.

13. Cf. in particular the sarcastic remark by Steubing, H, “Miscellen zur gotischen Bibelübersetzung des Ulfilas”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 64 (1952-3), pp. 137-65 (esp. p. 139):  “Ulfilas ist kein Bibelübersetzer von Gottes Gnaden gewesen (… Ulfilas was no Bible translator graced by God…)”.

14. Oxenstierna, Eric C G Graf, Die Urheimat der Goten, Mannus Bücherei, Band 73 (Leipzig, 1945).

15. The authorities on whom Das alte Germanien bases itself are:  Agathias (531-580), Ambrose (339-397), Ammianus Marcellinus (330-395), Anonymus Valesianus (sixth century), Appian (fl. 125), Arnobius (Adversus Nationes, c. 300), Arrian (second century), Ausonius (d. c. 395), Aurelius Victor (c. 360), Caesar (BG and BC, before 50 BC), Cassius Dio (fl. 200-230), Cicero, Consolatio ad Liviam (c. 9 BC), Dexippus (fl. 250-275), Dionysius Periegetes (second century), Epitome de Caesaribus, Eunapius (345-420), Eusebius (260-340), Eutropius (fl. 365), Florus (c. 122), Fredegar, Frontinus (30-104), George Syncellus (fl. c. 800), Granius Licinianus (second ceutury), Gregory of Tours (540-594), Herodian (third century), Horace, Irenaeus (130-202), Jerome (348-420), John of Antioch, Jordanes (fl. 550), Josephus (first century), Julian (332-363), Justin (100-165), Libanius (314-393), Livy (59 BC-17 AD), Lucan (39-65), Manilius (first century), Marcus Aurelius, Martial (40-104), Monumentum Ancyranum (c. 15 AD), Obsequens (Julius, fourth century), Orosius (fifth century), Panegyrici Latini (n.d.), Paulus Festi, Petrus Patricius, Pliny (Naturalis Historia, 23-79), Pliny the Younger (61-112), Plutarch (50-120), Polemius Silvius, Pomponius Mela (fl. 35-50), Posidonius (135-50 BC), Ptolemy (fl. 127-148), Pytheas (c. 310-306 BC), Sallust (86-35 BC), Scriptores Historiae Augustae (c. 300), Seneca (first century), Socrates (380-450), Sozomen (d. c. 450), Statius (Silvae, 92-96), Suetonius (c. 69-130), Symmachus (340-402), Tacitus (first century), Themistius (fourth century), Timagenes {first century BC), Valerius Maximus (first century), Varro (116-27 BC), Vellejus Paterculus (19 BC-30 AD) Xiphilinus, Zonatas, Zosimus (fifth century).  All of these are reasonbly well known and available in modern editions and translations.

16. For a large, but incomplete, list of the. sources on Christianity among the Goths, see the list by Piergiuseppe Scardigli in “La conversione dei Goti al cristianesimo” pp. 49-57.

17. Salaville, S, Un ancien bourg de Cappadoce:  Sadagolthina”, Echos d”Orient, 15 (1912), 61-3.

18. These are gathered in Streitherg, Wilhelm, Die Gotische Bibel, 3rd. ed. (Heidelberg, 1960), pp. 13-25, and translated in Heather and Matthews.

19. Massmann, Skeireins aiwaggeljons þairh Iohannen, p. 76.  On p. 77, he excludes Latin fathers for much the same reasons.  In defense of Massmann, it should be noted that he did note some parallels;  cf. p. 77, f.n. 2.

20. Reuss, Joseph, ed., Johannes-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt und herausgegeben, Texte und Untersuchungen, 89 (Berlin, 1966).

21. “Dagegen mußte auf die von Dietrich in reicher Fülle zusammengestellten biblischen “Quellennachweise” verzichtet werden, weil sie im besten Falle nur die Herkunft einzelner Gedanken oder Worte dartun, für die charakteristische Form der Skeireins jedoch ohne jede Bedeutung sind.”  (We had to omit the list of biblical sources so richly collected by Dietrich, because, at best, they only explain the origin of unrelated words or thoughts, which are of no importance for explaining the characteristic form of the Skeireins.)  Streitberg, Die Gotische Bibel, p. xxx.

22. As he pointed out long ago, the Skeireins can be understood “nur von dem genauen Kenner der Patristik, welcher der Germanist doch immer nur als Laie gegenüber steht, voll gewürdigt werden;  weshalb es sehr zu wünschen wäre, daß die Theologen dem Werk mehr, asl bisher geschehen ist, ihr Interesse zuwendeten, da es ihnen doch leichter fallen wird, gotisch zu lernen, asl dem Germanisten, sich in das ungeheure Gebiet der Exegese, Dogment- und Kirchengeschichte einzuarbeiten”  (Can only he appreciated by true expert in Patristics, a subject which the Germanist naturally only approaches as a layman.  Therefore it is to be desired that the theologians might turn their interest to the work more than has previously happened, since it would naturally be easier for them to learn Gothic, than for the Germanist to work himself into the monstrous field of theology):  Jellinek, Max Hermann, review of HG van der Waals” edition of the Skeireins.  AfdA, 20 (1894), 148-62 (esp. pp. 148 ff.).

23. Though he made bold to say:  “Dass also der Skeireinist den Irenaeus benützt hat, scheint mir höchst wahrscheinlich” (it seems most likely to me that the Skeireinist relied on Irenaeus):  Jellinek, Zur Skeireins, PBB 15 (1891), pp. 438-40.

24. Bennett, The Gothic Commentary on the Gospel of John, p. 4.

25. Mossé, Fernand.  “Bibliographia gotica”, Medieval Studies, 12 (1950), pp. 237-324.  Supplements:  15 (1953), pp. 169-83; 19 (1957), pp. 174-96 (by Marchand);  29 (1967), pp. 328-43 (by E. A Ebbinghaus);  36 1974), pp. 199-214 (by E A Ebbinghaus);  59 (1997), pp. 301-56 (by C T Petersen).

26. Bennett, William H, “The Troublesome Passages of the Skeireins”, Annales Universitatis Saraviensis, 4 (1955), p. 80, n. 13.

27. Bonsirven, Joseph, “La Vache rousse”, Textes rabbiniques des deux premiers siècles chrétiens, Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Rome, 1955), p. 688-92;  Mainmonides, Moses, “The Red Heifer” in The Code of Maïmonides, Book 10, “The Book of Cleanness”, tr. Herbert Danby, Jr. (New Haven, 1954), pp. 96-145.

28. Theodoret, Dialogues, p. 226.

29. Rashdall, Hastings, The idea of the Atonement in Christian Theology (London, 1920);  Rivière, Jean, many books bearing the title of Le Dogme de la rédemption…  The one which deals best with our period is L. Dogme de la redemption, Essai d”étude historique. (Paris, 1905).

30. Russell, J B, Satan.  The Early Christian Tradition (Ithaca, 1981), p. 193.

31. Leo the Great (390-461) Sermon XXII,“On the Nativity”, APNF, 2nd series, 12.130.

32. Zellinger, Johannes, “Der geköderte Leviathan im Hortus Deliciarum der Herrad von Landsberg, Historisches Jahrbuch, 45 (1925), pp. 161-77.

33. Ambrose on Luke 4:1-12

34. Augustine, De trinitate, 57.

35. Jellinek, Zur Skeireins, p. 439.