Cottrel R. Carson - Do You Understand What You Are Reading?

Chapter 1

I. History of Interpretation: The Ethiopian Eunuch Story (Acts 8:26-40)

A. Church Fathers

1. Irenaeus (ca. 115ca. 202)

Irenaeus was the first Greek writer to interpret the Chamberlain story. A native of Smyrna, Asia Minor, he probably studied and taught at Rome before becoming bishop of Lyon. He was an advocate of a type of Christian orthodoxy and found himself at odds with a Valentinian Gnostic movement. The five books of Against Heresies ( Adversus haereses ) were written in response to Valentinian Gnosticism and provide the classic statement of orthodoxy in the primitive Greek-speaking church.

In Adversus haereses , Irenaeus uses the Ethiopian eunuch story to illustrate the need for catechesis prior to baptism:

This one is Jesus and the scripture has been fulfilled in him, as the eunuch himself is persuaded, and immediately being worthy to be baptized, he said, I believe Jesus Christ to be the son of God. This one also was sent to the region of Ethiopia, preaching this, the very thing which he believed, one God having been preached through the prophets and the son of this one already made the advent for the human, and as a sheep to slaughter he was led, and the rest, whatever the prophets say concerning him.

Irenaeuss interpretation is especially important because of its early date.

As an opponent of gnostic philosophy, Irenaeus wanted to ensure that Christians were taught to read texts in a manner consistent with his view of orthodoxy. He used the Chamberlain story to illustrate how the Chamberlains reading of the prophet Isaiah was a necessary catechesis to prepare him for baptism. Our focus is the manner in which Irenaeus adapted the story.

First, the Ethiopian is portrayed as ignorant of the significance of what he reads. Irenaeuss first concern was to illustrate the need for persons to be taught by recognized church leaders so as to prevent unorthodox readings of texts. In Irenaeuss reading, Philip is the mediator of truth to the Ethiopian and is the one who sends him to Ethiopia. The authority that Irenaeus ascribes to Philip is a radical deviation from the Acts text and must be seen as a reflection of Irenaeuss own presuppositions with regard to the roles of Philip and the Ethiopian.

Second, Irenaeus refers to the Chamberlain only as eunuch. As Ephraem Syrus (Ephraem the Syrian) did two centuries later, Irenaeus omits terms used in Acts to denote social status. The independent nouns man and Chamberlain are not used, though Irenaeus does connect him with the queen of Ethiopia (Lat. reginae thiopum ), which is an ethnocentric reading of Candace. (The Empire was never ruled by a queen, but the Candace is a sovereign ruler.)

This downplaying of the Ethiopians social status highlights Irenaeuss portrayal of Philip as the independent agent who points out the significance of what is being read and then sends the Ethiopian on his way. By removing the tension (which I will discuss later) between the divine agents empowering of Philip and the Ethiopians social status, Irenaeus presented a reading of the story that in issues of culture significantly varies from the actual text of Acts. That is, whereas Lukes portrayal of the interaction between Philip and the eunuch discounts social class as a hindrance to community, Irenaeus portrays Philip as the Ethiopians social superior.

Irenaeuss understanding of oikos explains his interpretation of this text, an interpretation confirmed by his insistence that Cornelius (Acts 10) is the first non-Israelite convert. The Ethiopian eunuch has remained an other though a Christian. Ironically, when he quotes the Ethiopians confession of faith (cf. 8:37), Irenaeus provides strong evidence for the Ethiopian being the first non-Israelite convert. Later, fourth century scribes will remove the Ethiopians confession of faith, attempting to resolve the obvious tension. This matter will be treated more fully in the fifth chapter of the present work.

2. Tertullian (ca.160ca. 225)

Tertullian, a native of Carthage, North Africa, was the first extant Latin writer to address the Chamberlain story. A strongly individualistic theologian, Tertullian wrote in response to issues raised in the Monarchian controversies: Their importance lies in the fact that with them began the Trinitarian and christological controversies that dominated the history of Christian doctrine in the next two centuries. Tertullian described his own relation to God as a ray projected from the sun (Apology 21.12).

In De Baptismo , he drew on the Chamberlain story to bolster his contention that catechesis was not a necessary precondition for the eunuch to be baptized:

If Philip so easily baptized the eunuch ( eunuchum ), let us recognize that a manifest and conspicuous honor ( dignationem ) that the Lord deemed him worthy had occurred. The Spirit had instructed Philip beforehand to continue onto that road. The Chamberlain ( spado ) himself also was not found idle nor as one who was suddenly seized with desire to be baptized, but after going up to the temple to pray and being engaged on the divine scripture, it was necessary thus to understandto whom God had, unasked, sent an apostle, which one, again, the Spirit commanded that he join himself to the eunuchs chariot ( se curriculo eunuchi ). The scripture that he was reading happens to fall in with his faith. The exhorter is received and is taken to sit beside him. The Lord is pointed out. Faith does not delay. Water is not waited for. The apostle with the affair complete is snatched away.

Tertullians reading begins with an appeal for readers to recognize that the Lord deemed him (the eunuch) worthy. Several aspects of Tertullians reading of the Ethiopian eunuch story reflect a close reading of Acts and a worldview that allows for a place of honor within early Christian tradition to be accorded the Ethiopian eunuch.

First, in Tertullians telling of the Chamberlain story, the Ethiopian is granted a conspicuous honor by God before meeting Philip, who was instructed by the Spirit, sent by God, commanded by the Spirit, and finally snatched away. Contrary to his contemporary Irenaeus, Tertullian incorporates in his reading the details from the Acts text concerning divine control of Philips actions. For Tertullian, Philip, as in Acts, is not an independent mediator of knowledge but rather is simply an instrument of the Divine.

Second, Tertullian makes clear that Philip did not approach the chamberlain on his own accord but rather under the power of the Spirit. Philips social status was augmented by divine instruction. Thus, he was able to approach one of higher social status. While Philip was divinely instructed to join himself (on foot) to the Chamberlains chariot, the Chamberlain alone has the prerogative to invite Philip onto the chariot.

Noticeably absent from Tertullians telling of the story are both the description of the Chamberlain being sent to Ethiopia and the circumscribing of his evangelistic concern to Ethiopians. As in the Acts text, Tertullians Philip is snatched away, but the Chamberlains destination remains unspecified.

Tertullians reading of the Chamberlains story must be understood, at least in part, as a response to Irenaeuss. Though they are contemporaries, Tertullians African origin probably informs his seeing of the positive depictions of the Chamberlain in Acts more readily than Ireneaus. Whereas for Irenaeus, the Ethiopians role is peripheral, for Tertullian, the world envisioned permits a prominent role for the Ethiopian. And in the case of the Chamberlain story, Tertullians reading shows fewer deviations from the details of the Acts text.

3. Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine (ca. 265ca. 339)