The Persuasiveness of a Woman:The Mistranslation and Misinterpretation of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica 5.1.41
The text of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica 5.1.41, in which the slave woman Blandina is presented as a manifestation of Christ, has not traditionally been a controversial affair. This article, however, suggests a critical oversight among most English translations. Based on grammatical, syntactical, and interpretive evidence, the authors argue that Blandina should be made the subject of the phrase [inline-graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="01i" /], a translation that leads to a fundamentally different reading of the text. The standard translation reflects an understanding of the story that not only diminishes the importance of Blandina but also obscures both Eusebius' probable purpose for the story's inclusion in his Historia Ecclesiastica and the manner in which the Christians of Lyon understood their relationship to their god.
The text of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica 5.1.41 has not traditionally been a controversial affair. Aside from the matter of the authenticity of the passage, which claims to reproduce an encyclical letter from Gaul,1 the passage is treated by translators and commentators as merely an [End Page 1] episode, albeit a momentous one, in the larger story of the martyrs of Lyon.2 Eusebius recounts the martyrdom of several members of the Christian community in Lyon, and in HE 5.1.36-56 he describes the exemplary deaths of Maturus, Sanctus, Attalus, Ponticus, and Blandina. Blandina is one of the principal characters in the story, at least in terms of the space allotted to her in the narrative. Her lengthy introduction as the one "in whom Christ made manifest" (5.1.17-19)3 stands in contrast to the comparatively brief introductions of her fellow martyrs Maturus and Attalus, and foreshadows both the christophany in 5.1.41 and her death in 5.1.56. Her death comes as the climax of the episode, since she is put to death "last of all" on the final day of the contests, to the amazement of the crowd that "a woman endured so many and such terrible tortures" (HE 5.1.55-56; NPNF, 217).
The "manifestation" of Christ in HE 5.1.41 is the locus of what we contend is a previously unrecognized translation error. The christophany alluded to earlier in 5.1.17-19 occurs in 5.1.41 as Blandina is dangled from a stake before "wild beasts," who are about to devour her in front of a crowd in the local forum. Amid this spectacle in the arena, Blandina, while hanging from the stake, appears in the eyes of the Christians present as the crucified Christ. McGiffert's NPNF translation of the passage reads: [End Page 2]
But Blandina was suspended on a stake, and exposed to be devoured by the wild beasts who should attack her. And because she appeared as if hanging on a cross, and because of her earnest prayers, she inspired the combatants with great zeal. For they looked on her in her conflict, and beheld with their outward eyes, in the form of their sister, him who was crucified for them, that he might persuade those who believe on him, that every one who suffers for the glory of Christ has fellowship always with the living God.4
As one would expect, the Greek text tends to avoid repeating proper nouns in lengthy sentences, leaving the reader (or hearer) to determine the subject or object through the participles or articles employed, as well as by relying on the context. There is thus some apparent ambiguity as to the subject of the above italicized phrase's . There are only two candidates for the subject, as there are only two persons mentioned in the verse: Blandina and Christ. We would naturally expect to find opinion divided, even if unevenly, among translators as to which option is preferable. As it happens, however, the NPNF is far from alone in its preference for the latter option, and while searching for an example of the former option among the standard English translations, we gradually became aware that there is more at work here than a difference in translation options. We have, as it turns out, happened on an error in translation; an error that subsequently fosters an interpretative misunderstanding.
Like McGiffert in his NPNF translation, Herbert Mursurillo renders "that he might convince all who believe in him."5 The FC translation by Roy J. Deferrari and the 1965 translation by G. A. Williamson are more explicit; in them both translators capitalize the pronouns in question: "that He might persuade those who believe in Him,"6 "that He might convince those who believe in Him."7 So also the 1927 translation of Lawlor and Oulton: "that He might persuade those who believe in Him."8 Another option, although we will argue it is still unsatisfactory, is simply to avoid choosing an explicit subject. Thus, the nineteenth-century translation by C. F. Cruse reads: "For as they contemplated Him that was [End Page 3] crucified for them, to persuade those that believe in him, that every one who suffers for Christ, will forever enjoy communion with the living God."9 Kirsopp Lake's LCL translation similarly reads "to persuade those who believe on him";10 while in a recent translation, Paul Maier renders the passage "to convince all who suffer for Christ."11
Several of the English translations cited above read "that he/He might persuade," taking the subject to be Christ; while Cruse, Lake, and Maier circumnavigate the issue slightly by rendering the clause with an infinitive.12 In the latter option the subject of the verb is left as an open question, while those translators employing the former option seem to assume that it is Christ acting "through" Blandina. Theologically speaking, it is unlikely that anyone reading this text would doubt that the author's intent is to show that Christ works through Blandina; ultimately, that is the crucial point of any martyr text. The point we wish to raise, however, is that grammatically and syntactically the best translation of this clause is to render Blandina, not Christ, as subject. Such a translation does not negate the theological statement that Christ works through Blandina, yet unlike the traditional translation, it disallows the possibility that Blandina herself can be ignored. We argue that the erasure of Blandina as grammatical subject raises serious interpretive problems. By glossing over this slave woman, the very one through whom Christ works, the translations cited above make of her a nonentity at the most critical point of the passage, that is, at the very point where Christ shares
with a human being and that human being thereby persuades others to faith. To deny Blandina her place as the subject of this clause disrupts the process by which this text suggests Christ works in the world, that is, with and through a human being, even a lowly human being.
Thus after thorough examination of this text, we have been led to [End Page 4] question why common translations do not allow Blandina to stand as the subject of this clause; that is, to stand as the one who, at this climactic moment, persuades on behalf of Christ. Furthermore, we question whether the text itself supports such a translation. Here we shall argue first that although grammatically possible, neither the use of the infinitive nor the rendering of Christ as subject of this clause is tenable. The syntax and grammatical structure of the passage as a whole, as well as the emphasis the narrative places on the figure of Blandina, make it not only possible but highly probable that Blandina is the subject of the verb and the principal agent. That is to say, she is the one who stands in the stead of Christ, not negating Christ but actively working in Christ's stead as his agent. Second, we will demonstrate that this issue has interpretative ramifications beyond the level of this isolated passage, as it serves to highlight even further Blandina's central role within the larger story of the martyrs of Lyon.
We thus proffer two closely related arguments against the traditional English renderings cited above and in favor of making "she" (i.e., Blandina) the explicit subject of in any future English translations of Eusebius: (1) structure and syntax, including not just the grammatical options of the Greek text of the passage but also the weight of emphasis placed by the narrative on Blandina as the chief actor; and (2) the close identification of Blandina and Christ. This second point is also the source of the confusion, since the "he" given by most translators can only refer to Christ as the agent, with Blandina serving as a mere conduit for his action rather than as principal agent on his behalf. Yet throughout the passage it is she who prays, she who encourages, she who acts and stands in the stead of Christ. The identification of Christ and Blandina in the first instance, it should be remembered, is
. It is not that Blandina is merely a passive vehicle through which Christ appears to strengthen those being persecuted for believing in him. Rather, she is a representative of the
with the living God that the one who suffers for the
(lines 12, 13) "has always"
. She is the embodiment and exemplar of this form of active faith, the agent of Christ in the world, and thus to interpret her as wholly passive at this point in the narrative is also to misread the story at a fundamental level.
Structure and Syntax
The structure of HE 5.1.41-42 as a whole implies that Blandina is the subject of , in part for the simple reason that she is the primary subject throughout the entire passage: [End Page 5]
This passage, which comprises lines 7-21 in Schwartz's critical edition, is punctuated as two sentences, clearly centering on Blandina. At a quick glance one can observe that there are eight verbs: three principal finite verbs ( [lines 7-8],
[line 10],
[line 13], and
[line 15]); one infinitive (
[line 8]); and three subjunctives in purpose clauses with
[line 12],
and
[both line 17]14). Seven out of these eight verbs are third person singulars, and in five of the seven cases the majority of English translations assume the subject to be Blandina
.
A similar tendency can be shown with the participles. There are eighteen participles in this passage, nine of which are nominative.15 Of these nominative participles, eight refer to Blandina, as one would expect given that Blandina is the subject of the majority of the verbs.16 The only verb and the only nominative participle that cannot refer to Blandina are both [End Page 6] contained in the phrase (lines 12-13). The subject of
is the abstract "everyone who suffers"
on behalf
of the glory of Christ. This clause is governed by the ὅτι in line 12, which is itself dependent on the phrase
: "In order to persuade/convince believers . . . that every one who suffers has eternal
with the living God" (line 13).17 Thus, the only verb of which Blandina is not the subject, aside from the disputed
, occurs in a dependent clause that spells out exactly what believers are being persuaded to believe through her example. Even this point should not be overemphasized, however. The purpose of the passage, and of the vision of Blandina as Christ on the cross, as we observe above, is to demonstrate the
of God with "every" person who suffers on behalf of Christ's
. This sight is meant to persuade believers to suffer, presumably as "believers," and Blandina serves as the exemplar of
who has achieved this
. So although in a strictly grammatical sense the subject of
is
. this grammatically masculine subject is merely an abstraction
from the specific example of Blandina, who suffers for the glory of Christ and demonstrates eternal
with God. Notably, this abstraction implies an active agency (that is, a deliberate choice for suffering), so that we thus have six of the seven third person singular verbs in this passage referring back to the action of Blandina and its effects. Thus the question arises, why not simply assume the same for
as well?
The parallel structure of both HE 5.1.41 and 5.1.42 also argues for making Blandina the subject of . These two sentences contain a structurally identical pattern with Blandina as the subject18 governing a finite verb,19 followed by a
clause.20 The addition of several nominative participles at the end of the sentence in 5.1.42 clarifies that it is indeed Blandina who is referred to throughout, unlike the less explicit subject of the
clause in 5.1.41, but the structure of the two sentences is otherwise identical. This structural similarity deepens when one realizes that "she" has not been referred to by name since the start of line 7! The clause governing the first
is actually
, while the clause governing the second is simply
. The first phrase in lines 7 and 8 ("Blandina was suspended on a stake" [NPNF, 215]) provides the narrative frame and setting for the whole of HE 5.1.41-42, [End Page 7] and all the activity occurs within this narrative framework, of which Blandina is the central protagonist. Blandina is referred to by name solely at the start of this passage, but all the actions (aside from the verb
) throughout the passage are understood by all the translators referenced above as relating to her, that is, as focused on her. When one considers the identical structure of the two sentences and all the activity attributed to Blandina, the question of why Blandina is not also allowed to be the one who "persuades" presents itself even more sharply.
The chief reason, grammatically, for reading Christ as the subject of seems to be the presence of the phrase "he who was crucified"
immediately before
(lines 11, 12). Literally the sentence reads, "those who were in the contest were looking, with their outer eyes, through their sister, on the one who was crucified on their behalf."21 This rendering makes some sense, in spite of the objections we have raised above, as the masculine singular in the phrase "believers in him"
can only refer to the immediately preceding
. The natural way, however, of construing a
clause would be simply to read the same subject as the main verb, since it expresses "the purpose of the main clause,"22 as most translators do in the same type of clause in 5.1.4223 and as we are suggesting should be done in 5.1.41. But one could perhaps make the argument that the antecedent "him who was crucified," taken in conjunction with "in him," allows for the understanding of Christ as the subject. This argument, however, must account for the presence of the phrase
rather than a much simpler
(although
might admittedly be read as a fixed religious phrase) were Christ the obvious subject, as well as countering all of the above discussion. We are not arguing that the current standard translation is entirely impossible, as its very prevalence would render such an absolutist claim suspect. It is, however, far less probable than our suggested translation and appears to stem not from the grammar but rather from a theological view that precludes the notion of a woman standing in the stead of Christ. More importantly, the very failure on the part of commentators to notice the difference that Blandina as a subject [End Page 8] who "persuades" makes to the story of the martyrs of Lyon, and to the entire Historia Ecclesiastica's view of martyrs, represents an interpretive failure far beyond the syntax of the passage.
Blandina as Christ
Read in the traditional manner, Blandina's story is not much different than that of any of the other martyrs depicted in the Historia Ecclesiastica. It might be said that "Christ persuades" others to faith through any of them. Like the other martyrs, Blandina suffers for her faith and is eventually rewarded with the crown of salvation. Except perhaps for dramatic effect, one wonders why the ancient author (let alone Eusebius) should even have felt it necessary to include the ordeal of a lowly slave woman in his encyclical letter.24 We suggest it was included not simply as one more "type" of Christ but rather, more precisely, because Blandina embodies a union with Christ, that is, because she enters with him and thus comes to share actively in his power of persuasion. By doing so, she demonstrates that such communion and power are a possibility for all who suffer with Christ. As she hangs beaten and bloody on the stake, Blandina does indeed re-present Jesus who died in like manner; yet, in this instance, she is also more than mere representation. She is the principal agent, the one who acts and suffers on behalf of Christ, and therefore the one who persuades others to faith in the visible absence of Christ.
We should stress here that the notion that Christ uses and works through Blandina is not in dispute. Rather, it is the erasure of this agent of Christ that occurs in the translations noted above to which we take exception. As already noted, Christianity presupposes that God works through human beings. Moses, for instance, is said to have lifted his arms and thus parted the Red Sea. That God wields the power behind his action is rarely, if ever, in doubt. Yet typically, the action itself is ascribed to Moses. Moses, not God, was the visible entity. In the same way, Blandina is the visible entity in this text. While believers do indeed see [End Page 9] Christ, they see him only in their sister. Thus, Blandina persuades believers, even as Moses persuaded the sea to move back. The ultimate power is that of God. Yet clearly something important is lost if Moses is not recognized by the Israelites as God's active representative and agent in the story of the parting of the Red Sea. We submit that the same is true of Blandina in this text. As a re-presentation of Christ, she must hold the very power of Christ; she must be able to persuade. If not, she is impotent as Christ's visible agent. It would be as if Moses stretched out his hand and nothing happened.
Yet we know from this text that things do indeed happen once Blandina is lifted up on the stake. It is at the very point of this disputed passage that there is, for believing onlookers, a conflation between Blandina and Christ. Blandina is still Blandina for believers who see her "in the form of their sister"; yet for them she also becomes Christ, since while looking on her "with their outward eyes" they also "see him who was crucified for them." Blandina does not negate Christ, then, nor does Christ negate her; rather in the eyes of believing observers the two blend into one. In this conflation with Christ, Blandina becomes the mediating Christ, the one who prays and who by that ardent prayer exercises power that forces a shift of events. The conflation of Blandina and Christ at this crucial point of persuasion differentiates Blandina from other martyrs, even from those within this text such as Sanctus and Maturus who, although they endure gloriously, go predictably off to their horrific deaths. Blandina suffers, and yet, like Christ, her response to suffering results in the unexpected.
As Jesus the victim became for believers the ultimate victor, so Blandina the apparent ultimate victim of this text becomes victor. The powerful picture of her victory takes shape on this day as she hangs on the stake, as she becomes Christ in the eyes of believers. It begins as she takes up vigorous prayer in order that believers would be persuaded "that every one who suffers for the glory of Christ has fellowship always with the living God" (5.1.41). If a lowly female slave such as Blandina is able to enter with Christ, and thus to serve as visible mediator for others with God, so surely must it be possible for all believers. One need not be a deacon like Sanctus nor a Roman citizen like Attalus. On this fateful day the message is clear. Even the lowliest person has potential to become one with Christ, even such as Blandina the slave woman.
Two assertions of the text lift up this identification of Blandina with Christ: first, that the beasts do not touch Blandina; and second, that the persecutors take her down from the stake to await a later contest. These assertions do so by alluding strongly to the crucified Christ as he is [End Page 10] depicted in the Gospel of John.25 According to the Johannine gospel, soldiers broke the legs of the criminals crucified alongside Jesus, yet they did not break the legs of Jesus himself (John 19.33). As Jesus escapes that final assault with a mallet, so Blandina escapes the assault of the beasts. While throughout the rest of the text the beasts seem never to lack an appetite for blood, on this particular day, even as they are being thrown in Blandina's direction, they refuse to touch her (HE 5.1.42). Blandina on the stake, like Christ on the cross, is protected by circumscribed boundaries. Just as the soldiers could do no more to harm Jesus' earthly body because "they saw that he was already dead" and thus beyond the power of their grasp (John 19.33), so Blandina is beyond the power of the beasts. She cannot be harmed because she is in communion, she is one, with Christ.
Likewise, Blandina's oneness with Christ is lifted up in the very act of her persecutors' taking her down from the cross. They are forced to remove her alive, the reader is informed, because of the noncooperation of the beasts (HE 5.1.42). That they cannot force the beasts to devour her [End Page 11] is a clear indication of their loss of power. The strength of Rome is usurped in this instance by the likes of a lowly noncitizen, a slave and a woman. As the soldiers return Blandina to the prison "to be guarded for another contest," it is evident that they have not seen the last of her (HE 5.1.42). Instead, they will be forced to look on her again, to face her in yet another contest, in the same way that the Johannine gospel informs its readers that Jesus' persecutors were not yet finished with him. Instead, in fulfillment of scripture, the author of the gospel declares, "They will look [again] on the one whom they have pierced" (John 19.36-37).
The fact that within this narrative Blandina becomes for her captors a detestable, unrelenting sight, a continuing reminder of their loss of power, is significant. It underscores the author's identification of this woman with Christ. In the eyes of Christian observers in the story, Blandina on the stake and Christ on the cross are one. As Christ's power was understood not to have waned on his removal from the cross but rather to have endured, continuing to challenge oppressors and encourage believers; so Blandina's ongoing ordeal, her victory through even more games, does the same. According to the text, Blandina was removed from the stake and guarded for another contest "in order that, having been victorious through more games, she would make irrevocable the judgment of the twisted serpent and she would urge on the brothers" (HE 5.1.42).26 For believers, then, she is a visible and ongoing reminder of Christ's presence in the world. It stands to reason that she is able both to make irrevocable the judgment and to urge on the brothers precisely because she is identified as one with Christ.
While such identification may not be critical to Blandina's urging on of the brothers, one can hardly presume that the author of the narrative intended to depict this woman as one able to overcome evil apart from Christ. Thus, the text's designation of Blandina as the one who makes "irrevocable the judgment of the twisted serpent" is crucial. That action-taken together with the sheepish action of the soldiers once they ascertain that they are unable to break her allegiance to her god and with the passive withdrawal of supposedly ferocious wild beasts-underscores that in this text Blandina re-presents Christ, that is, that she stands in the stead of the no longer visible Christ, and that she does so as a woman and as a slave. Given that translators allow this woman to stand as the subject of both verbs in this phrase, it is difficult to imagine that she should not be [End Page 12] understood also as the subject of the disputed verb "to persuade."27 Grammatically and syntactically, the majority translation of this passage makes little sense. Still, since the moment of persuasion is the precise point at which mediation between the believer and God occurs, it is also the most specific and blatant point at which Blandina becomes Christ for those observers who see her as such. It therefore makes a great deal of sense that this woman not be allowed to stand as subject here if translators are guided by a theological premise that precludes the possibility of a woman standing in the stead of Christ.
Theology not withstanding, one further point in regard to this passage suggests that the author intended to portray the woman Blandina as Christ, that is, to assert that onlooking believers understood her as Christ himself in their midst. According to the text, Blandina, after overthrowing the "adversary" many times, finally wins the traditional reward of the martyr-the "crown of immortality" (HE 5.1.42). This occurs through deliberate action on her part. In spite of the fact that she is still "small and weak and despicable," Blandina is said to have "put on the great and invincible athlete Christ" (HE 5.1.42). Had the author intended to portray Blandina as a completely passive, insignificant conduit through which Christ could pass, he might have said that Christ entered Blandina. Instead, he chooses to report that Blandina puts on Christ. The verb used in the passage suggests the putting on of clothing, that is, assuming a covering.28 When one clothes the self in this manner, the self is not lost; [End Page 13] rather, it remains present within the garment.29 When Blandina puts on Christ, then, she is no less Blandina. She is still a slave and still a woman. She remains "small and weak and despicable" (HE 5.1.42). Yet because she seizes Christ, puts on Christ, she clothes herself with Christ and thus also with his very power, the power of the living god.30
At first glance, the distinction between whether Blandina puts on Christ or Christ enters Blandina may seem small. Yet the failure to recognize that Blandina holds agency here is simultaneously a failure to recognize the role the text assigns to both Blandina and to Christ. As for Blandina, not acknowledging her agency represents an inability to adequately identify the central point of this martyrology, the message that "everyone who suffers for the glory of Christ has fellowship always with the living God" (HE 5.1.41). In this case it is Blandina who shares fellowship with Christ, yet the clear message is that the potential exists for all believers; it is not dependent on any constraints imposed by social standards. Blandina's refusal to recant, her insistence on communing with Christ in prayer, and her verbal confession (made earlier) "I am a Christian" subsume both her low status as slave and her low status as woman (HE 5.1.19). By seizing and "putting on" Christ, this smallest, weakest, and most despised victim is transformed into the greatest, the strongest, the most noble of victors-Christ himself. The portrayal of the transformation of the lowliest requires a figure understood by onlookers and later readers as the lowliest. In this text, that lowliest one is the slave woman Blandina.
In examining the role assigned to Christ by this text, the recognition of Blandina's agency is also crucial. It should be noted that Christ is portrayed here not as a dictatorial, all-consuming god who allows no freedom of choice, but rather as a god who shares fellowship, even power, with those who suffer for his sake. When believers see Christ through Blandina and thus are aroused to zealous faith, Christ is sharing power with this woman. The two are in fellowship (communion) with one another, and together they offer that possibility to other believers. The text's use of the word , often used in early Christian literature to depict marital and spiritual union, indicates that the author wishes to [End Page 14] convey the most intimate of relationships.31 In this case, Blandina enters into the garment of Christ; she puts on Christ. Christ, for his part, clothes Blandina; he covers her, surrounds her. The two become one in the eyes of believers. To fail to recognize Blandina's agency is to fail to recognize the all-encompassing love of Christ. Furthermore, it is to fail to recognize the very reason for which the martyrs died, that is, their hope of entering into
, into intimate relationship, with their god.
Blandina and Eusebius
Given Blandina's strong identification with Christ, it becomes less difficult to understand why her story was included in the encyclical letter sent by survivors of the Christian community at Lyon. Likewise, it becomes easier to understand why Eusebius deemed the story, and particularly Blandina's prominent place in it, "worthy of perpetual remembrance" (HE 5.Introd.2; NPNF, 211). While Blandina is not the only martyr to be named by Eusebius, this fact is not inconsequential given that he often groups martyrs together, glossing over their names and individual identities. Indeed, it is somewhat surprising that Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica gives any of the martyrs of Lyon more than a cursory reference, since he claims to have actually witnessed many martyrdoms in his own day.32 One might expect such recent deaths, rather than those dating back over one hundred years, to be the more likely candidates for being "hand[ed] down to imperishable remembrance" (HE 5. Introd. 4; NPNF, 211).33 That he devotes space to a slave woman, in particular, speaks to the importance he places on her story for the future of the church. Clearly, Eusebius believed Blandina possessed the ability "to persuade."
In the general introduction to his Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius sets down several points that relate the purpose of his work. Regarding Christian martyrdom, he writes that his purpose is "to record the ways and the [End Page 15] times in which the divine word has been attacked by the Gentiles, and to describe the character of those who at various periods have contended for it in the face of blood and of tortures" (HE 1.1.3; NPNF, 81). Continuing, he says that he will start his entire work "with the beginning of the dispensation of our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ" (HE 1.1.3; NPNF, 81).
If we examine Eusebius' use of the story of the martyrs of Lyon in relation to these statements of overall purpose, it is possible to draw two broad conclusions: first, Eusebius believes these martyrs to have been heroic defenders of the faith; and second, he understands the dispensation of Christ on earth as foundational to the whole of his work. Still, while each of the ten martyrs of Lyon deemed worthy of mention by Eusebius in his Historia Ecclesiastica serves his purpose as a hero of the faith, Blandina alone clearly demonstrates the dispensation of Christ on the earth. Sanctus and the others are regarded as noble and victorious in the eyes of fellow believers. Yet it is only Blandina in whom believers see "the one who had been crucified for them" (HE 5.1.41). As they look on this fragile and torn wisp of a woman, Christians see their Savior; and they see him in the flesh and in his passion. We suggest then that Eusebius highlights Blandina's ordeal specifically because she serves that which he perceives as the overall purpose of his text. It is no accident, as we noted earlier, that Blandina's introduction in HE 5.1.17 foreshadows the christophany in 5.1.41 and that her death "last of all" in 5.1.56 points back to her communion with Christ. For Eusebius, the fact that believers see Christ in the person of Blandina is the apex of the story. He highlights the event precisely because Blandina is seen as the incarnate and crucified Christ, the one who persuades, who brings others to faith.
Yet while it is possible to see how the story of Blandina fits Eusebius' broad purpose, it is impossible nonetheless to ignore the fact that the text makes no secret of Blandina's womanhood. How does it happen that believers (including Eusebius) could look on a woman and see the one crucified, that is, Jesus of Nazareth, historically a male? Even if firsthand onlookers had been gripped by spiritual fervor to the extent that they overlooked her sex, it does not seem likely that Eusebius, a writer not known for the passion of his discourse, could ignore this point. The matter is troubling because it might suggest that Eusebius sympathized with some of the ways of "heretics," such as the Montanists, who were said to have given a more prominent place to women than did believers who followed the path of the "Great Church."34 Yet, if so, it is indeed odd [End Page 16] that Eusebius takes care to refer to members of the Gallic Christian community as exercising "prudent and most orthodox judgment" in the matter of the Phrygian controversy (HE 5.3.4; NPNF, 219).
There is, however, a logical reason for Eusebius to make use of a female Christ figure without regard for accusations of heresy and without concern for her physical sex. As to the first matter, Eusebius associates the extremely virtuous behavior of martyrs in general with orthodoxy. For him, the martyr's ability to resist temptation and to face whatever terror comes his/her way precludes the possibility that the faith of such a one should be judged by anyone. This does not mean that Eusebius was comfortable with every martyr. He clearly disapproved of those who voluntarily sought death. Yet he was always struck by the power of such a person's faith. As Robert Grant puts it, "Eusebius admired heroism but not suicidal heroism"; he was opposed to the rigorists of his day "but not to the martyrs among them."35 It is possible that Eusebius' high regard for martyrs rested in a bit of guilt over the fact that he himself had escaped such a fate.36 Still, whatever the reason, Eusebius seems not to worry that the lifting up of a woman as a Christ figure might make him vulnerable to charges of heresy. In fact, he venerates a variety of female martyrs, saying: "the women were not less manly than the men in behalf of the teaching of the Divine Word, as they endured conflicts with the men, and bore away equal prizes of virtue" (HE 8.14.14; NPNF, 337).
For Eusebius, it is apparent that physical sex is far less important than virtue. However, we cannot so easily dismiss the matter. In the case of Blandina, Eusebius does not simply ignore the fact of Blandina's anatomy. Indeed, the text suggests that he capitalizes on it. Repeatedly the reader is reminded of the weakness of her body and of the fact that a woman was actually able to endure such suffering. This "blessed woman" is "like a [End Page 17] noble athlete" enduring all for the glory of the name (HE 5.1.19). She is the weakest of the martyrs, the one whom the leaders most feared would be unable to resist the pressure to recant (HE 5.1.18). Yet she does resist, and in so doing she moves from the position of the least of the martyrs to the position of the greatest. It is precisely Blandina's low social status as a woman and as a slave that makes her the perfect Christ figure for Eusebius.37 As Jesus took up the role of perfect servant, mediating with God on behalf of sinners and furthering the cause of the oppressed, so Blandina takes on that role as she hangs on the stake before her community. It was a role that could not have been filled by anyone in the upper echelons of society. If everyone were to have this possibility of communion with Christ, the model for entering such communion would have to be one that did not exclude anyone-even the lowliest, even the woman, even the slave.
Conclusion
An examination of Eusebius' use of this text, as well as its grammatical and narrative structure, leads us to conclude that modern translations that do not designate Blandina as the subject of the verb lead to a serious misinterpretation of this text. Perhaps the mistranslation arose and has been allowed to stand due to a modern, rather than an ancient, inability to conceive of a woman as standing in the stead of Christ. The problem created is not simply that this woman's agency goes unnoticed (a serious difficulty in its own right) but that the fundamental understanding of the story is undermined. If this woman is not depicted as occupying the seat of the mediating Christ in this text, then the very dispensation of Christ as the primary event at Lyon is negated, since the dispensation occurs through her.
Thus, if Blandina is not recognized as the embodiment and exemplar of active faith, the power of the text is greatly diminished. If she herself has no with Christ, no blended relationship in which she enters [End Page 18] Christ and Christ surrounds her, then there is no reason for other believers to be filled with zeal or to believe that they too might have such everlasting communion with their god. The active role of Blandina is the essential component in this text. If she is not recognized as the one who persuades, then no believer can be understood as taking up the mediating role in inspiring others to faith. Indeed, if Blandina does not stand in the stead of Christ, her story is little different from that of other martyrs. It is difficult to assume that Eusebius understood Blandina's martyrdom in that manner for two reasons. First, from among so many female martyrs, he chooses to relate the name and story of this particular woman, using her manifestation as Christ to prove that things that appear "mean and obscure and despicable to men are with God of great glory" (HE 5.1.17; NPNF, 213). Second, as a character, she serves the overall purpose of his history so well, that is, she clearly demonstrates the dispensation of Christ on earth.
The intrusion of this misreading damages historical understanding of the text, and thereby also our understanding of the way that some early Christians understood their relationship to Christ. On a more ethical level, it overlooks the importance of Blandina's martyrdom, erasing her power as a supreme model of active faith. We argue then that not only does it make good grammatical sense to read Blandina as the subject of the verb (even as she is the subject of all the other verbs in this passage) but indeed that doing so is essential to an adequate reading of the overall text. [End Page 19]
Elizabeth A. Goodine is Assistant Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at Loyola University in New Orleans, Louisiana
Matthew W. Mitchell is Assistant Professor in the Department of Comparative Religion at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia
Footnotes
1. Eusebius informs his readers that he relates the account of these martyrs in their own words (HE 5.1.2). It must be recognized that although the content and grammar of this account in its original form were not written by Eusebius, scholars have traditionally treated it as "his" work. It is possible that he altered both content and grammar to suit his own purpose, and we would add that it is highly unlikely that he would have included any portion of a text with which he disagreed without extensive revision. However, the issue of the authenticity of the story of the martyrs of Lyon has received only a small amount of critical attention. With the exceptions of J. W. Thompson (who questioned the validity of the letter in 1912) and J. Colin (who did so in 1964), scholars have overwhelmingly viewed it as authentic. See Herbert Mursurillo, ed. and trans., The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), xx; and Timothy Barnes, "Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum," JTS 21 (1968): 509-31, 517 nn. 6-7. See also A. C. McGiffert, NPNF, 2nd ser., 1:212 n. 3. The simplest understanding is that Eusebius gives his readers the version of the text that he deems most serviceable for his purposes.
2. The standard critical edition is Eduard Schwartz and Theodor Mommsen, eds., Eusebius Werke, vol. 2, Die Kirchengeschichte, pt. 1, Books 1-5 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903). Throughout this article, citations of line divisions in the HE refer to this edition. Since Schwartz edited the Greek text of the HE and Mommsen the Latin translation by Rufinus, we will refer only to Schwartz in subsequent references. There are no important textual variants cited in the critical apparatus on this passage, beyond the issue of the presence of the preposition (Schwartz 418). The Syriac translation's variant on the term "sister" (durch diese Schau) is believed to be a corruption ("
verdorben aus
Schwester"), although it has little bearing on the discussion here. In addition to the English translations cited below, the story of the "martyrs of Lyon" receives its own entry in A New Eusebius: Documents Illustratingthe History of the Church to AD 337, ed. J. Stevenson, rev. with additional documents by W. H. C. Frend (London: SPCK, 1987), 36-42.
3. HE 5.1.17-19 (trans. C. F. Cruse, Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History: Completeand Unabridged, new updated ed. [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998], 150).
4. HE 5.1.41 (trans. McGiffert, NPNF, 215 [italics ours]).
5. Mursurillo, Acts of the Christian Martyrs, 75 (italics ours).
6. Eusebius Pamphili: Ecclesiastical History, trans. Roy J. Deferrari, FC 19 (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1953), 282.
7. G. A. Williamson, trans., Eusebius: The History of the Church from Christ toConstantine (Baltimore: Penguin, 1965), 200.
8. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea: The Ecclesiastical History and the Martyrs of Palestine, vol. 1, Translation, trans. with introduction and notes by Hugh Jackson Lawlor and John Ernest Leonard Oulton (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1927), 145.
9. Cruse, Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, 154.
10. Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History, trans. Kirsopp Lake, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965), 427.
11. Paul L. Maier, Eusebius, The Church History: A New Translation withCommentary (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 176.
12. Translating a clause by an infinitive is not necessarily inaccurate. As is often noted in reference grammars, the natural tendency of Koiné/Hellenistic Greek is for
to usurp many of the functions that would have been performed by the infinitive in the classical period. See A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testamentin the Light of Historical Research, 3rd ed. (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919), 991-94; and F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testamentand Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), §369. It seems apparent that in this passage, however, the
clause does reflect a real purpose.
13. HE 5.1.41-42 (Schwartz 418).
14. These two latter verbs belong to a clause (the particles being the first words in lines 17 and 18) and are thus governed by the same
.
15. The participles are: (line 7),
(line 8),
(line 9),
and
(line 10),
(line 12),
(line 13),
(lines 13-14),
(line 14),
(lines 14-15),
and
(line 16),
(line 18),
and
(line 19),
and
(line 20), and
(line 21).
16. Obviously it would be impossible for the majority of nominative participles to refer to anything other than the noun that governs the majority of the verbs. It is worth noting, however, because the narrative's heavy emphasis on Blandina's action contributes to the argument that she is also the likely subject of the verb . Also, given that the translation option argued for here has gone virtually unnoticed, we would hope to be allowed a certain measure of pedantry in affirming Blandina's agency.
17. This and all other unattributed translations in this article are by the authors.
18.
(line 8),
(lines 13, 14).
19.
(line 10),
(line 15).
20.
(line 12),
and
(lines 16, 17).
21. This rendering unpacks the genitive absolute and inserts a preposition (looked "on") where the Greek requires none.
22. See W. W. Goodwin and C. B. Gulick, Greek Grammar (1930; repr., New Rochelle: A. D. Caratzas, 1992), §1374; or any standard reference grammar.
23. Williamson, Eusebius, 200; Mursurillo, Acts of the Christian Martyrs, 75; Deferrari, FC 19, 282; Lake, Eusebius (LCL), 427; McGiffert, NPNF, 215; and Cruse, Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, 154, all understand Blandina as the subject of .
24. As noted above in n. 1, although Eusebius claims to transmit these portions of the encyclical letter accurately, there is the possibility that it was altered either by him or an earlier redactor. However, whether the form we now have is the work of the ancient author(s) or of Eusebius himself makes little difference to our point that Eusebius deemed it useful, in this form, for inclusion in his Historia Ecclesiastica; either he agreed with the ancient author and transmitted it as he received it (as he claims to have done), or he altered it to read as it does in the Historia Ecclesiastica.In any event, we assume that the current wording of the text bears the stamp of Eusebius' approval, even if it originates elsewhere.
25. A variety of New Testament passages are quoted or alluded to throughout this letter; however, the passages and themes of the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation are most prominent. Believers understand their persecutors as already "ensnared by Satan himself" (HE 5.1.14), and they view the wrath of the oppressor as that of a wild beast acting out in order that "the scripture might be fulfilled: 'Let the lawless still be lawless, and the righteous still be righteous'" (HE 5.1.58, citing Rev 22.11). Furthermore, dual camps of good and evil, outlined in the text, strongly resemble the duality of light/dark, truth/deceit that is prevalent in Johannine literature. The persecutors are depicted as servants of the "Evil One" or "adversary," while believers are designated servants of God (HE 5.1.6 and 5.1.5 respectively). The "Paraclete" is mentioned early on in the person of Vettius Epagathus, who makes a defense for the believers and who thus is called the (HE 5.1.10). Raymond Brown, "The Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel," NTS 13 (1967): 118, has asserted that for the writer of the Gospel of John, the "Paraclete" is multifaceted; yet it is distinguished from more general New Testament depictions of the Spirit in that it exhibits a forensic quality, acting as a type of defense witness within the context of a trial. Here Vettius Epagathus represents just such a spokesman for the believers; he defends them before the Roman governor and crowd, who are hostile to them, even as the Paraclete in the gospel acts as a defender for Jesus before a world that is hostile to him. In addition, Vettius Epagathus is also said to possess "the Spirit
[even] more abundantly than Zacharias" (HE 5.1.10; McGiffert, NPNF, 213). By likening Vettius Epagathus to the father of John the Baptist, the text further suggests that members of the community in Lyon utilized and esteemed the Johannine gospel above the others. Indeed, the Paraclete, with its many facets, plays a leading role throughout the text, descending repeatedly on believers at Lyon and sustaining them with strength and comfort throughout their turmoil.
26. We have already seen that the subject of the verbs in this clause ( and
) is assumed by the majority of translators to be Blandina.
27. An objection might be raised that the use of passive verbs (e.g., Blandina "was hung" and "was exposed") indicates that Blandina is not necessarily the subject of the active verb . However, the use of passive verbs serves to keep the focus on Blandina as the "subject" of the passage in terms of both grammar and content in a manner that semantically equivalent phrases like "they hung her" or "they exposed her" would not. Although one cannot completely rule out Christ as the subject of
, the question as to why no translator sees "she might persuade" as a viable option, even as the text fails to explicitly identify Christ as the subject, is not answered by such objections. Given the centrality of the moment in the narrative, it is not unreasonable to expect that a change in grammatical subject would be announced more clearly, nor is it unreasonable to ask what has prevented translators from seeing the translation proposed here as even a remote or far-fetched possibility.
28. Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott, eds., A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. Henry Stuart Jones (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 562. Liddell-Scott-Jones also offer a second meaning of the verb : "to enter, to press into." The word's metaphorical usage in Christian writings develops from its New Testament usage. See W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, eds. (hereafter BDAG), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 2b (333-34): "of the taking on of characteristics, virtues, intentions, etc." This use can be found in the New Testament (1 Cor 15.53-54), and Paul expressly uses the phrase "put on Christ" in Rom 13.14
and Gal 3.27
. BDAG refers to this as a "bold figure" (334). G. W. H. Lampe, ed., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 469-70, notes the extension of the word's theological meanings throughout the patristic period.
29. Cf. the language used in Gal 2.19-20.
30. Cf. Luke 24.49: .
31. See BDAG, 552-53; Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, 762-63.
32. See especially Eusebius HE, Book 8, in which he recounts many contemporary martyrdoms.
33. Ancient listings of the martyrs of Lyon suggest that as many as forty-eight died during the events of the summer of 177 C.E. The most extensive study of these lists to date was conducted by Dom H. Quentin, "La liste des martyrs de Lyon de l'an 177," AB 39 (1921): 113-38. Eusebius records only the names of ten of these martyrs in his Historia Ecclesiastica. However, in his introduction to Book 5 he informs the reader that he has already included a full account of these events in his Collection of Martyrdoms (no longer extant) and that he intends to repeat here only those portions "needful" for his present purpose. It is evident then that he considered Blandina's story to be highly significant.
34. Raymond Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), 83, used the term "Great Church" to refer to those second-century apostolic churches that became increasingly bound by a "common structure of episcopate and presbyterate in mutual recognition."
35. Robert M. Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian (Oxford: Clarendon, 1980), 123.
36. At the Council of Tyre in 335 C.E. Eusebius was accused by one of the supporters of Athanasius (Patomo, Bishop of Heraclea) of having offered sacrifice in order to avoid persecution. It was an accusation not backed by any solid evidence. Yet it may have caused Eusebius a certain degree of emotional pain, since he had managed to live while many of his acquaintances and even his great teacher Pamphilus had died. See Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian, 123-24; or any of the many introductions to the life of Eusebius, especially the Prolegomena in McGiffert, NPNF, 3-72; and more recently the introduction in Maier, Eusebius, The Church History, 9-20.
37. While in our day such a narrative plan must surely be viewed as less than flattering-something like hiring a woman only because she's a woman-it is well documented that in the ancient world women were understood as inferior to men on a hierarchical scale of sexuality. For a compilation and analysis of sources (e.g., Aristotle, Galen, Soranus) regarding this topic, see Thomas Laqueur, Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999). However distasteful his motives for the modern reader, Eusebius makes use of that world view to paint a dramatic picture that runs contrary to cultural assumptions of hierarchy and power.
