ARAM, 20 (2008) 111-124. doi: 10.2143/ARAM.20.0.

2033124
F.P. BARONE 111

THE IMAGE OF PROPHET ELIJAH IN PS. CHRYSOSTOM.

THE GREEK HOMILIES

FRANCESCA PROMETEA BARONE

(University of Palermo)

To Michelangelo, gratefully

Prophet Elijah’s lifestory is essentially narrated in chapters 17-19 of the

First Book of Kings1, and in chapters 1-2 of 2 Kings. Elijah the Tishbite sud-
denly appears on the beginning of 1 Kings 172, while pronouncing a woeful
omen aganist Ahab, king of Israel: As the Lord, the God of Israel, lives,
whom I serve, during these years there shall be no dew or rain except at my
word. Ahab in fact, the Bible says, had done what is evil in the Lord’s eyes,
worse than all his predecessors, serving Baal and prostrating in front of him3.
At the beginning of the drought, Elijah is at first sent near the stream Cherit
by the Lord, so that he can drink and can be nourished by the ravens4; then
to Zarephath of Sidon, where a widow would satisfy his hunger. Here he
performs two miracles for the woman’s benefit, replenishing for her the

* In starting this contribution I’d like to thank once more Professor Sever J. Voicu, utmost

expert about Chrysostomic spurious works, for the indications he provided me with in the course
of this work with his usual helpfulness. Also, I’d like to express my most sincere gratitude to
Mrs. Raffaella Fiore Scopelliti, who accepted, with extreme kindness, to translate these pages
into English.
1 According to LXX the book at issue is, instead, 3 Kings. In fact the books called 1-2 Samuel

by the modern Bible, are called 1-2 “Basileíwn” by the Septuagint, whereas 3 and 4 “Basi-
leíwn” correspond to “our” 1 and 2 Books of Kings. Cfr. M. Lestienne, La Bible d’Alexandrie
9.1, Premier Livre des Règnes, p. 23: “Presque tous les manuscrits grecs de la Septante donnent
au livre qui nous occupe le titre de Basileiôn a’, «premier [livre] des Règnes». Ce livre est le
premier de la série des quatre livres des Règnes de la LXX. Avec la Vulgate l’usage s’introduisit
dans le monde latin de donner à ces livres le nom de «livres des Rois». Une remarque de Jérôme
dans son «Prologue aux livres des Rois» est sans doute à l’origine de cette nouvelle
dénomination: «Il vaut beaucoup mieux dire Malachim, c’est-à-dire “Rois [Regum]”, que
Malachoth, c’est-à-dire “Royaumes [Regnorum]”, car [le livre] ne décrit pas les royaumes de
nombreuses nations, mais uniquement celui du peuple d’Israël, composé de douze tribus»
(Vulgata, éd. R. Weber, p. 364). Dans la Bible hébraïque, le premier et le deuxième livre des
Règnes portent respectivement le nom de premier et deuxième livre de Samuel; le troisième et le
quatrième, celui de premier et deuxième livre des Rois”.
2 The prophet’s birth, and his family story, which the Bible passes over in silence, are nar-

rated in Vitae Prophetarum.

3
 Cf. 1 Kings 16, 29-34.
4
 Cf. 1 Kings 17, 2-6.

07-0398_Aram20_07_Barone 111 09-16-2008, 17:12

 112 THE IMAGE OF PROPHET ELIJAH IN PS. CHRYSOSTOM

almost exhausted oil and flour, and resurrecting her son, who had fallen seri-
ously ill5.
At last, when the Lord orders him, Elijah goes to king Ahab’s, gathers all
the Israelites and all the idolatrous prophets and defies them to show Baal’s
power in the course of a sacrifice. As their prayer failed, the prophet invoked
the Lord to send a fire consumming the sacrifice, so revealing his power; then
he has the impostor prophets killed6.
After everybody has recognized the Lord’s power, Elijah puts an end to the
drought. Afraid however of the threats of revenge and death pronounced
against him by Queen Jezebel, the prophet escapes into the desert feeling dis-
comforted. An angel comforts him and provides him with food, so allowing
him to walk for 40 days and 40 nights towards Horeb. Here he meets God,
who orders him to anoint the king of Aram and Israel and to consecrate Elisha
as his successor7.
The prophet’s life comes to an end in chapter 2 of 2 Kings, in which his as-
cension to heaven on a firey chariot drawn by fire horses is narrated8.

PROPHET ELIJAH IN THE FATHER OF CHURCH.

A SHORT ACCOUNT

Prophet Elijah is a main figure in biblical history and, substantially, he ap-

pears in the works of all the Fathers of the Church, both Eastern and Western.
According to the period, the aims and the interests of each, the different au-
thors of Christian tradition gave a reading of their own of the character, under-
lining one or another of the events that marked his life, and celebrating, some-
times with some reservation, the different aspects of his rich and complex fig-
ure9.
Generally, Christian authors of the early centuries interpreted Elijah’s figure
in a parenethical sense, considering him as an exemplar referent for Christian
virtues, and in a typological sense, considering him as a figure of Christ him-
self because of his ascension to heaven.
From the former point of view, Elijah has been considered a model of sev-
eral virtues by the different authors: he is first of all an example of zeal to-

5
 Cfr. 1 Kings 17, 7-24.
6 Cfr. 1 Kings 18.
7
 Cfr. 1 Kings 19.
8
 Cfr. 2 Kings 2. And, specifically, cfr. v. 11. With regards to Elijah’s lifestory, cf. the portrait
of the prophet drawn in Sir. 48, 1-12.
9
 For an analysis of the different readings supplied by the Fathers in the early centuries, cf. E.
Poirot, Le saint prophète Elie d’après les Pères de l’Eglise, Abbaye de Bellefontaine 1992, and,
more recently, EADEM, Les prophètes Elie et Élisée dans la littérature chrétienne ancienne,
Brepols 1997.

07-0398_Aram20_07_Barone 112 09-16-2008, 17:12

 F.P. BARONE 113

wards God; still the only prophet of God among the idolatrous prophets of
Baal, he stands for the man of God experiencing loneliness and persecution,
and therefore he appears as a martyr to the Fathers; lastly, his lifestyle, as well
as his charismas, make him a model of ascetic life, archetypal figure of the
monk. Elijah in fact lives in poverty, in silence, in prayer; he experiences the
presence of God on the Horeb and with God has a relation of great par-
rhesia10; he realizes a link of spiritual fatherhood with Elisha11.
From the typological point of view, instead, Elijah is considered as a figure
of Christ in experiencing persecution by the Jews, whereas his elevation to
heaven is a figure of Christ’s incarnation, resurrection and ascension.
In the context of the many-faceted readings and the various patristic inter-
pretations about Elijah, the specific aim of my research will be to identify the
tracts characterizing his figure in the Pseudochrysostomical homilies explicitly
dedicated to the prophet. Occasional references – even if numerous – in the
Corpus Pseudochrysostomicum12, won’t be taken into consideration. Inside
such a collection of texts, heterogeneous out of necessity from many points of
view – the works explicitly referred to Prophet Elijah can be easily divided
into two groups:
– Homilies in Greek language: In Eliam prophetam sermo PG 56, 583-586, CPG
4565; In SS. Petrum apostolum et in Eliam prophetam PG 50, 725-736, CPG
4513; In Martham, Mariam et Lazarum PG 61, 701-706, CPG 4639; Oratio in
Eliam prophetam CPG 4971, BHG 557b.
– Ancient versions: Encomium in Eliam prophetam (CPG 5150.4, BHO 267), in
Coptic; Sermo de ascensione Eliae (PLS 4, 835, CPL 917) and Sermo de Elia
(PLS 4, 694-696), in Latin.

10
 Parrhesia is a very important term in the Greek culture, both Ancient and Christian. About
the meaning of the term in Greek world, cf. M. Foucault, Discorso e verità nella Grecia antica,
Roma 19983, italian translation from the original in English Discourse and Truth. The
problematization of Parrhesia, Evanstone, Ill. 1985. Particularly, on p. 4: “Etimologicamente,
parresiazestai significa «dire tutto», da «pan» (tutto) e «rhema» (ciò che viene detto). Colui che
usa la parresia, il parresiastes, è qualcuno che dice tutto ciò che egli ha in mente: il parresiastes
non teme niente, ma apre completamente il cuore e la mente agli altri attraverso il suo discorso.
Nella parresia, si suppone che il parlante dia una spiegazione completa ed esatta di ciò che ha in
mente (…)”. On parrhesia in Judaic-Hellenistic Literature and in Christianity, cf. G. Scarpat,
Parrhesia greca, parrhesia cristiana, Brescia 2001. Particularly, on p. 89: “Nella letteratura
giudeo-ellenistica (…) si afferma in particolare il nuovo valore religioso della parrhesia verso
Dio (™ pròv tòn qeòn parrjsía): è il diritto degli amici di Dio (Abramo, Mosè ecc.) di
potergli dire tutto, specie nella preghiera”. In accordance with the idea that only the Just can ex-
ercise such a right, in the pages dedicated to the New Testament concept of parrhesia, the author
explains that, according to St. Paul, it is thanks to Christ that men acquire parrhesia in front of
God, therefore the Fathers recognize such a right to the baptized only. “La parrhesia, ottenuta
per filiazione divina, è, tuttavia, sempre condizionata dalle nostre opere, cioè da una coscienza
morale incontaminata” (p. 103).
11 On the patristic interpretation of Elijah as the beginner of monastic life, cf. E. Poirot, Elie,

archétype du moine, Abbaye de Bellefontaine 1995.

12
 On the very large series of Chrysostomic spurious works, cf. J. A. de Aldama, Repertorium
Pseudochrysostomicum, Paris 1965.

07-0398_Aram20_07_Barone 113 09-16-2008, 17:12

 114 THE IMAGE OF PROPHET ELIJAH IN PS. CHRYSOSTOM

In this contribution I will discuss the Pseudochrysostomic texts in Greek.

For an examination of the works in Coptic and Latin translations, see my
friend and colleague Gianluca Masi’s contribution also published in this vol-
ume.

IN ELIAM PROPHETAM SERMO

The homily In Eliam Prophetam sermo (PG 56, 583-586) is considered an

old spurious work by Sever J. Voicu, as it was plagiarized by Basilius of
Seleucia13, and it is indicated in the Byzantine homiliaries as a liturgical read-
ing for St. Elijah's feast on the 29th of July14.
It mainly comments on the episodes of Elijah’s life, narrated in 1 Kings 17,
that is the oath against Israel people, which provokes a 3 year long drought
and the immediately subsequent events.
In the course of his whole preaching, the tract characterizing the prophet is
so obstinate a zeal toward God not to expect mercifulness: Elijah is a just man
(díkaiov) and wants the Jews to be punished for the sins in which they persist.
He doesn’t approve of God’s behaviour, who, in his extreme goodness, always
has himself moved to pity by just a few fears, so provoking the perseverance
in sin by Israel. Hence the oath: As the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, whom I
serve, during these years there shall be no dew or rain except at my word,
which is interpreted by our author as a device excogitated by the prophet for
punishing the people, so preventing God from exercising his mercy15.
New devices, but this time put into effect by God, in an attempt to make his
prophet milder, follow the device excogitated by the prophet himself, in the
reading of the biblical events proposed by our text. The Lord, in fact, punishes
Elijah together with Israel, in order that, oppressed by the torment of hunger,
he could nourish milder thoughts towards the judgment (ÿna t±Ç toÕ limoÕ kaì
aûtòv sunexómenov timwríaç bouleúsjtaí ti perì t±v âpofásewv t±v
ênórkou filánqrwpon)16.
The Prophet’s punishment is however mitigated: in fact God orders him to
go to the stream Cherit, where he could quench his thirst and where the ravens
would nourish him at his command17. The choice of nourishing the prophet
through the ravens assumes, in the Pseudoschrysostomical interpretation, a
13
 Cfr. S.J. Voicu, «“Furono chiamati giovanniti…”. Un’ipotesi sulla nascita del corpus
pseudocrisostomico», in B. Janssens, B. Roosen, P. Van Deun (ed.), Philomathestatos. Studies in
Greek and Byzantine. Texts Presented to Jacques Noret for His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 137), Leuven 2004, pp. 701-711, p. 704, n. 24.
14 Cfr. E. Poirot, Le saint prophète Elie…, op. cit., pp. 20-21.
15
 PG 56, 583, 14-29.
16 PG 56, 583, 48-50.
17
 1 Kings 17, 2.

07-0398_Aram20_07_Barone 114 09-16-2008, 17:12

 F.P. BARONE 115

paradigmatic value. According to the Psalms, in fact, the raven hates its off-
spring, as it doesn’t nourish what it gives birth to (misóteknov gàr ö kóraz
goneúv, kaì ° tíktei m® tréfwn)18. The ravens’ benevolence towards the
prophet, their transformation, becomes a warning for Elijah to take on a simi-
lar behaviour: ˆAllˆ ºra nÕn metabebljménouv toùv kórakav· ºra t®n
êkeínwn, √ ˆJlía, filanqrwpían· oï perì toùv oîkeíouv âpánqrwpoi
neossoúv, soÕ gínontai zenodóxoi filótimoi. ‰Atopón êstin, √ ˆJlía,
toùv mèn kórakav mesítav gínesqai pròv sè t±v parˆ êmoÕ filanqrw-
píav, sè dè mesítjn to⁄v ˆIoudaíoiv m® gínesqai t±v parˆ êmoÕ katˆ
aût¬n timwríav. Aîdésqjti t®n t¬n korákwn metabolßn, kaì genoÕ perì
toùv ˆIoudaíouv xrjstóv19. The ravens, even if they don’t nourish their own
young, become for the prophet an instrument of God’s goodness towards him:
it’s absurd (àtopon) for Elijah not to act as an intermediary of God’s goodness
towards Israel! He has instead to feel ashamed for his hardness, and become
good towards his people.
It must be noted that the absolutely “human” vocabulary through which the
ravens are presented, makes comparison even more binding for Elijah, there-
fore the shame is inevitable: they are in fact defined apànthropoi – that is in-
human! – in relation to their young, while towards Elijah they take the func-
tion, equally human, of generous hosts (xenòdochoi philòtimoi)20 and interme-
diaries (mesìtai). Still, their benevolent behaviour towards the prophet is de-
scribed in terms of a real conversion (metabàllo, metabolè are the terms used).
But Elijah doesn’t yield and, the pseudochrysostomical text explains, God
works another device, still in the attempt to make him more benevolent
(filanqrwpóteron)21. So He sends him to Zarephath of Sidon, at a poor wid-
ow’s, in order that she nourishes him22. The order, the author comments,
should provoke horror in the prophet, as in that time Jews were forbidden
to have relations with the Gentiles. But Elijah obeys, not to invoke rain for
Israel23.
Arrived at the widow’s he is welcomed with hard words: As the Lord, your
God, lives, I have nothing baked; there is only a handful of flour in my jar and
a little oil in my jug. Just now I was collecting a couple of sticks, to go in and
prepare something for myself and my son; when we have eaten it, we shall
die24. At this voice Elijah, at least, begins to feel some affliction, (‰Jrzató ti
pásxein pròv t®n fwn®n ö ˆJlíav)25, having some compassion for his host-
18
 PG 56, 583, 54-55. Cfr. Ps. 146, 9.
19 PG 56, 583, 74-584, 7.
20
 A little forther, in PG 56, 584, 55, it’s Zarephath widow who is defined as xenòdochos.
21
 PG 56, 584, 20.
22 1 Kings 17, 7-9.
23
 PG 56, 584, 19-27.
24 PG 56, 684, 43-47 (≈ 1 Kings 17, 12).
25
 PG 56, 584, 52.

07-0398_Aram20_07_Barone 115 09-16-2008, 17:12

 116 THE IMAGE OF PROPHET ELIJAH IN PS. CHRYSOSTOM

ess. Therefore he softens (xaunoÕtai)26, and begins to show a milder disposi-

tion (ãrxetai loipòn filanqrwpíav ên ëaut¬ç periférein melétjn)27: For
the Lord, the God of Israel – says – the jar of flour shall not go empty, nor the
jug of oil run dry, until the day when the Lord sends rain upon the earth28.
But God, spring of goodness (™ t±v filanqrwpíav pjgß)29, feeling com-
passion for all the Israelites, introduces a last instrument of mercy (mjxan®n
filanqrwpíav)30: the widow’s son’s death. The prophet in fact, feels
ashamed of what is happening in that house because of his arrival and under-
stands it is a divine work (≠Çsqeto téxnjn oŒsan toÕ pántwn Despótou tò
gegenjménon), intended to force him to goodness (mjxan¢sai katˆ êmoÕ
filanqrwpíav ânágkjn)31. The same moment Elijah had besought God to
have mercy on the widow’s son, God would have asked in his turn mercy on
Israel32. Only at this point the Lord, seeing at least Elijah tamed (êkdama-
sqénta)33, therefore milder (filanqrwpóteron)34, sends him to king Ahab,
in order to put an end to the drought.
At the close of the homily, even the elevation to heaven of Elijah is inter-
preted as a witness of so strict and deep a zeal towards God not to allow the
prophet to live together with sinners. In fact, as he doesn’t succeed in feeling
mercy for those who offend God through sin, but he continues to wish them
punished, and the punishment has no measure, God, admiring his zeal but feel-
ing mercy for the human beings’ frailty, takes him away from living with
them, awarding him an ascent to heaven35.

THE HOMILY IN MARTHAM, MARIAM ET LAZARUM.

THE PROPHET’S HARDNESS

The themes seen in the homily In Eliam Prophetam constitute the central
topic of another pseudochrysostomical text dedicated to Elijah, the homily In
Martham, Mariam et Lazarum36. This one too is indicated in Byzantine
homiliaries as a liturgical reading for St. Elijah’s feast37.
26 PG 56, 584, 56.
27
 PG 56, 584, 56-57.
28
 PG 56, 584, 57-59. Cfr. 1 Kings 17, 14.
29
 PG 56, 584, 66.
30
 PG 56, 584, 67.
31 PG 56, 585, 27-28.
32
 PG 56, 585, 31-37.
33 PG 56, 585, 37-38.
34
 PG 56, 585, 38.
35
 PG 56, 586, 24-33. On the theme of Elijah’s ascension in the Pseudochrysostom, see
Gianluca Masi’s already quoted contribution.
36
 There exists an unpublished compendium of this text, for which read L. Torraca, L’omelia
pseudocrisostomica Sul profeta Elia e la vedova, Vichiana 15 (1986), pp. 169-175.
37
 Cfr. E. Poirot, Le saint prophète Elie…, op. cit., pp. 20-21.

07-0398_Aram20_07_Barone 116 09-16-2008, 17:12

 F.P. BARONE 117

The occasion for introducing Elijah’s character, in the rhetoric pretense, is

given by the words of a Jew, who tends to assimilate Lazarus’s resurrection
operated by Christ, to the widow’s son’ operated by Elijah. The author pro-
poses, in fact, to show how, differently from what had happened for Lazarus,
the widow’s son hadn’t died of natural causes, but for educating Elijah, so that
he was forced to turn from hard heartedness to compassion (dià paideían kaì
ql⁄cin toÕ ˆJlía, pròv tò kamfq±nai tòn ˆJlían êk t±v skljrokardíav
eîv sumpáqeian)38.
The passage already fully expresses the differences between the two
pseudochrysostomical texts. If, in fact, in both cases, the most defining trait of
Elijah is his zeal towards the Lord, accompanied by a sense of justice which
forbids him to feel pity for suffering Israel; and if, still, in both cases, the
events are interpreted as devices excogitated by God to make the prophet good
and pitiful, yet the homily In Martham Mariam et Lazarum heavily stresses
Elijah’s hardness of heart (sklerokardìa)39: skleròs40 is defined the prophet, he
who doesn’t know mercy but remains hard (sklerynetai)41, God wants to miti-
gate his hardness (sklerìa)42, but he opposes, therefore he is called akampès
(unbending)43. It is to be noted that, in the previous homily, none of these
terms is used in reference to Elijah. Also the stratagems put into effect by God
for operating the transformation of the prophet are common to both the homi-
lies: the ravens, first, then the widow, at least the boy’s death. Yet the interpre-
tation of the paradigmatic value of such events is evidently different and surely
in the latter much harder towards Elijah.
The order given to the prophet to go to the stream Cherit to be nourished by
the ravens, far from being considered an example of metabolè of these ani-
mals, offered to Elijah in order to realize in himself an exactly alike inner
transformation, is on the contrary read as an offense given to the prophet by
God (übríhein the term used). It wasn’t convenient (ânoíkeion), in fact, for
Elijah to eat meat as he conducted an ascetic life from the beginning: TaÕta
dè ∂fj ö Kúriov, oûx ÿna qrécjÇ tòn ˆJlían, âllˆ ÿna übrísjÇ· oûx ÿna
timßsjÇ, âllˆ ÿna dià t±v êfubrístou trof±v eîv sumpáqeian aûtòn
ëlkúsjÇ. ˆAnoíkeion gàr ¥n tòn profßtjn dià korákwn traf±nai, kaì
kreofóron aût¬ç trápehan parateq±nai t¬ç êz ârx±v âskjtikoùv pó-
nouv diatemónti44.
The ravens are therefore, in this reading, an instrument of outrage to Elijah,
because they offer the prophet an inconvenient food for him. God, the author
38
 PG 61, 703, 57-59.
39 PG 61, 703, 59.
40
 PG 61, 705, 60.
41
 PG 61, 703, 70.
42 PG 61, 703, 71 e 704, 60.
43
 PG 61, 704, 33 e 69.
44 PG 61, 704, 5-11.

07-0398_Aram20_07_Barone 117 09-16-2008, 17:12

 118 THE IMAGE OF PROPHET ELIJAH IN PS. CHRYSOSTOM

comments, could have nourished the prophet in a honourable way (semn¬v)45;

instead, he prepares him an outrageous table, so that, through that food, he
could be bent to pity and compassion (ºpwv dià t±v êfubrístou trof±v
kamfq±Ç pròv sumpáqeian kaì o¤kton)46. Still, if Elijah had complained,
God would have answered him that that food was the result of his own labour,
because he himself prevented any form of life, not allowing rain to Israel47.
In the same way, also the order to go to the widow’s is considered, as in the
previous homily, a device operated by God to bend the prophet to mercy; and
yet, in this reading, God doesn’t want to soften him (xaunów) through the di-
rect contact with the suffering of her, who is in any case generous with him;
he rather wants to humiliate him, forcing him to ask for food from a very poor
widow: ¨Or¢çv p¬v ∂speuden eîv sumpáqeian aûtòn kl⁄nai ö Kúriov; Oû
gàr âpésteilen aûtòn eîv o¤kon ârxontikón, Æ eîv basilikón, Æ eîv
eΔporón tina guna⁄ka, âllà pròv xßran êndeoménjn, ºpwv kån oÀtw
kamfq±Ç pròv sumpáqeian48. And if he had complained with the order, the
author comments, God would have answered, still harshly, that it had been his
behaviour to make the earth barren, the widow poor49.
Elijah, instead, remains akampès and obeys the order. Actually, not at all
broken hearted by the situation, he goes to the widow’s happy to have at least
access to a fit table: (…) eûqéwv êsteílato t®n êpì Sidwníouv âpodj-
mían, ên eûfrosúnjÇ, Æ ôdúnjÇ porihómenov. ‰Akouson dè pròv taÕta.
Zenisqeìv ö ˆJlíav üpò t±v xßrav eœren âdapánjton trápehan, gnjsían,
ärmódion, âskjtikßn, Àdwr kaì ∂laion kaì ãleuron, kaì dúo zulária50.
The prophet, on the whole, in the course of the examined homily, appears
absolutely careless of the evils provoked by him, completely deaf to God him-
self, even capable of joy, whereas everything is death and desolation around
him.
The 3rd device operated by God to make Elijah milder is, on this case too,
the widow’s son’s death. Only at this point he yields. He realizes his own
hardness and allows Israel the rain in exchange for the boy’s life.

45
 PG 61, 704, 15.
46
 PG 61, 704, 31-33.
47 PG 61, 704, 44-55: Tí légeiv, √ ˆJlía; oû katadéxjÇ pie⁄n Åuparòn Àdwr, üetòn m®

êásav katelqe⁄n; êpuráktwsav gàr t®n g±n toÕ ˆIsraßl· oûk ∂stin eüre⁄n stagóna
Àdatov ên fréati, oΔte ên pjg±Ç notída. ÁO oŒn êpoíjsav, katádezai. Oû prosdéxjÇ kreo-
fóron korákwn trofßn; Oûk ∂stin eüre⁄n ãrton, oûdè stáxun, oûdè xlojfóron
láxanon, mßpote ∫mbrou mßte drósou pesoúsjv êpì t±v g±v t±Ç s±Ç toÕ stómatov klei-
qrÉsei· oûdèn ∂stin eüre⁄n, eî m® kréa móna, kaì taÕta nekrima⁄a, t¬n hÉwn teleutj-
sántwn t±Ç êkleícei t¬n trof¬n. Tí oŒn oû prosdéxjÇ t®n trápehan t¬n s¬n kamátwn;
48 PG 61, 704, 64-69.
49
 PG 61, 704, 80-705, 4. Tí légeiv, √ ˆJlía; parait±Ç t±v xßrav t®n trápehan, ö p¢san
t®n g±n ˆIsra®l steireúein paraskeuásav, xßran aût®n êrgasámenov, ste⁄ran kaì
ãteknon, karpoùv m® tíktousan, kaì sù parait±Ç t±v xßrav t®n trápehan;
50
 PG 61, 705, 6-9.

07-0398_Aram20_07_Barone 118 09-16-2008, 17:12

 F.P. BARONE 119

Far distant from these tones, so as from the interpretation of the prophet tes-
tified by both the homilies up to now examined, is the homily which John
Chrysostom dedicates to Prophet Elijah, In Eliam, et in viduam, et de elemo-
syma (PG 50, 337-348)51.
The author shows unreserved admiration for the prophet, whose willingness
to suffer, even if not guilty, the Israelites punishment, is magnified. Elijah’s
bearing thirst and hunger and not allowing Israelites rain, far from being con-
sidered a sign of his hardness, is celebrated by John Chrysostom as a trial of
extreme virtue (philosophia)52. In fact, he doesn’t avoid that suffering himself,
wishing, more than anything else, the people to have possibility for redemp-
tion: Oû gàr ån eÿleto stenoxwroúmenov oÀtw, kaì üsteroúmenov, kaì
qlibómenov, kaì kakouxoúmenov, m® lÕsai t®n âpeilßn, eî m® âpò
polloÕ toÕ hßlou t®n makarían êkeínjn âf±ke fwnßn. Dióper kaì
Ødion ¥n aût¬ç stenoxwre⁄sqai, kaì swfronihoménouv aûtoùv ör¢çn, Æ
t±v ânágkjv âpallagéntav t±v êpikeiménjv, pròv t®n protéran âsé-
beian êpanelqóntav îde⁄n. ToiaÕtai gàr pantaxoÕ t¬n ägíwn aï cuxaí·
üpèr t±v ëtérwn diorqÉsewv t®n ëaut¬n âsfáleian prodidóasin. ÊIna
oŒn mß tiv légjÇ, ºti dià t®n Ömótjta êpéteine tòn limón, âf±ken aûtòn
koinwn±sai toÕ limoÕ, ÿna máqjÇv toÕ profßtou t®n filosofían53.

THE HOMILY IN SS. PETRUM APOSTOLUM ET IN ELIAM

PROPHETAM

Concluding our close examination of the pseudochrysostomic homilies in

Greek language dedicated to Prophet Elijah, the last text to examine is consti-
tuted by the homily In SS. Petrum apostolum et in Eliam prophetam (PG 50,
725-736)54, which appears nearer to the tones of the genuine Chrysostom, and
the spurious character of which is, on the other side, much discussed. The
homily in fact was considered, in the Seventeenth Century, authentic by both
Savile, even if not among the best Chrysostom works, and Tillemont. In the
eighteenth century, however, Montfaucon seems perplexed; he declines to de-
clare it spurious only in deference to his illustrious predecessors55. Regarding
51
 On Elijah’s figure in John Chrysostom, cfr. E. Poirot, Les prophètes Elie et Élisée…, op.
cit., pp. 433-436.
52 The term filosofía assumes several meanings in the course of its story, even very differ-

ent one from another. Cfr. about it A. M. Malingrey, «Philosophie». Étude d’un groupe de mots
dans la littérature grecque des Présocratiques au IV siècle après J. C., Paris 1961. In particular,
on pp. 264-288 the scholar deals with the use of the term in John Chrysostom.
53
 PG 51, 342, 39-51.
54 Cfr. E. Poirot, Le saint prophète Elie…, op. cit., pp. 20-21.
55
 Cfr. Monitum ad homiliam in SS. Petrum et Eliam, PG 50, 725-726: “De hac homilia sic
loquitur Henricus Savilius: (…) gnjsía, ut opinor, sed non melioris notae: habitaque, ut
videtur, Constantinopoli. Verum, ut recte notat Tillemonius, potius Antiochiae habitam eam

07-0398_Aram20_07_Barone 119 09-16-2008, 17:12

 120 THE IMAGE OF PROPHET ELIJAH IN PS. CHRYSOSTOM

modern scholars who devoted themselves to the problem, J.-P. Bouhot defends
its authenticity56, whereas Sever J. Voicu considers it spurious, even if pro-
duced in ancient times57.
Also the homily In SS. Petrum apostolum et in Eliam prophetam, just as the
ones previously examined, is indicated in Byzantine homiliaries, as a lecture
intended for St. Elijah’s feast.
Differently from the already examinated homilies, or at least in a more
marked form, the text reveals a celebrative intent. Since the first lines dedi-
cated to the prophet, it results in fact patent the positive evaluation of which he
is an object: Elijah is an angel on earth (êpígeiov ãggelov)58, a heavenly man
(êpourániov ãnqrwpov)59, he was even raised to the vaults of heaven (eîv
aûtàv ânapetasqénta toÕ oûranoÕ tàv äc⁄dav)60; his tongue became a
store of waters and a key of heaven (oœ ™ gl¬tta qjsauròv êgéneto t¬n
üdátwn kaì kle⁄v t¬n oûran¬n)61, so that he could be considered rich and
poor altogether. Poor, because he possessed nothing; rich, because he retained
the rain clouds in his tongue (pénjv mén, ºti mjdèn êkéktjto, ploúsiov dé,
ºti tà néfj toÕ üetoÕ ên t±Ç glÉttjÇ kate⁄xe)62.
The portrait of Elijah taking shape in the course of the homily often acquires
the shades of a panegyric. Elijah is an exemplar referent of virtue (filosofía,
âretß), of faith in God (pístiv)63, of religious pity (eûsébeia)64; he is cel-
ebrated for his wisdom (sofía)65, also for his righteousness (díkaiov the
prophet is defined as righteous' in PG 50, 733, 56).

fuisse suadent ea, quae dicuntur initio, nempe festum Martyrum in agro tunc celebratum fuisse,
quod in Antiochenis homiliis passim, in Constantinopolitanis nusquam habetur: id vero et nos
dicimus, si tame ea verum et gnßsion sit Chrysostomi opus. Orationis certe genus prorsus
abhorret a stylo Chrysostomi; ac licet sanctus doctor non semper sui similes sit in orandi
narrandique modo, haec certe concio ab aliis omnibus, cum melioris tum inferioris notae,
orationibus toto caelo differt. Dictio inelegans est, genus orationis incultum ac prorsus jejunum.
Longe vero ineptiorem illam praeferunt manuscripti Codices, quam editi. Ad haec multa hic
habentur quae oratorem supinum et non accuratum arguant (…). His ego de causis hanc
homiliam inter spurias adlegare statim cogitabam: at cum Savilius et Tillemonius gnjsían illam
esse opinentur, licet hic postremus non sine quodam scrupolo eam germanis annumeret, satis
habui inter suspectas locare”.
56
 Cfr. J.-P. Bouhot, Adaptations latines de l’homélie de Jean Chrysostome sur Pierre et Elie
(CPG 4513), Revue bénédictine 112 (2002), pp. 36-71 e 201-235.
57
 Cfr. S. J. Voicu, La volontà e il caso: la tipologia dei primi spuri di Crisostomo, in
Giovanni Crisostomo: Oriente e Occidente tra IV e V secolo. XXXIII Incontro di studiosi
dell’antichità cristiana, Roma, 6-8 maggio 2004 [Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 93], Roma
2005, pp. 101-118, p. 114.
58
 PG 50, 728, 42-43.
59
 PG 50, 728, 43.
60 PG 50, 728, 45-46.
61
 PG 50, 728, 47-48.
62 PG 50, 728, 49-50.
63
 PG 50, 731, 23-25.
64
 PG 50, 730, 27.
65
 PG 50, 731, 44.

07-0398_Aram20_07_Barone 120 09-16-2008, 17:12

 F.P. BARONE 121

The preacher demonstrates the uncommonness of the character, drawing a

context of vice and widespread godlessness around him. The only one to pos-
sess the lamp of religious pity, he is seated on his virtue as on an high moun-
tain, whereas his loneliness turns out to be much more distressing as nobody
takes any advantage of that light.
Nobody in facts gives ear to his word, nobody is willing to listen to his
warning; the people lies in a deep sleep persisting in idolatry: ˆJlíav mónov
¥n tòn lúxnon ∂xwn t±v âret±v, kaqáper êpì koruf±v ∫rouv t±v filo-
sofíav kaqehómenov kaì âsk¬n, mónov mèn ∂xwn tòn lúxnon t±v
eûsebeíav, oûdéna dè Öfélei tò fÉtisma dià tò kárwç aûtoùv kata-
ke⁄sqai, kaì eîdwlolatreíaç aûtoùv katéxesqai66.
The author rejoices at indulging in the description of the religious, and
therefore moral, decay in which Israel is: the world is enveloped in darkness,
everyone is willing to commit sin. Idolatry, and with it every kind of vice, cel-
ebrates its triumph. To frame the painting here is the night, an image by which
the representation starts and by which, as a ring, it ends, to mean a darkness
enveloping everything, even in the linguistic sign: Nùz gàr ¥n, diˆ Ω kaì
kate⁄xe t®n oîkouménjn †pasan· nefélj puknotátj êkálupte tà
súmpanta. Pántev gàr proékopton êpì tò kakón· oîkoumenikòn ¥n
nauágion, oûx üdátwn, âllà âselgeíav· swfrosúnj êkpodÉn, kaì âko-
lasía êpompeúeto· âret® êdiÉketo, kaì kakía ênjbrúneto· bounoì kaì
∫rj, kaì nápai, kaì ödoí, kaì tame⁄a kaì ö â®r êmolúneto· ö Øliov
êkapníheto, ™ g± êmiaíneto, ö oûranòv êzouqene⁄to, ™ ktísiv p¢sa
ênósei âpò eîdwlolatreíav· Üv ên nuktì pántev periepátoun, oûdenì
proséxontev t¬n ktismátwn, líqon ∂blepon, kaì Üv qeòn prosekúnoun·
zúlon ∂blepon, kaì toÕto ömoíwv qeòn ênómihon. Nùz aûtoùv e¤xe
puknotátj· tòn ktístjn ∂blepon, kaì to⁄v ktísmasi prosekúnoun67.
This gloomy representation of Israel's condition, far from being accidental,
proves instead functional to the justification the author wants to give for
Elijah’s hardness towards Israel. Witness of sin and abominations of every
kind, the prophet rises agaist his people – being absolutely right our author so
suggests – and punishes it. He hopes in fact the Israelites, exhausted by hun-
ger, approach to God with prayers, and hunger becames an occasion of pity for
them (ÿna kån oÀtw t¬ç lim¬ç tjkómenoi êpì tòn Djmiourgòn t±Ç eûx±Ç
fqáswsin, ÿna ö limòv üpóqesiv aûto⁄v génjtai eûsebeíav)68.
Elijah’s behaviour is therefore seen as extremely positive on the one hand,
in fact, his oath is shown as unavoidable, as the last possible solution to gen-
eral godlessness; on the other hand it is directed not to vengeance, but to the
sinners’ redemption.
66 PG 50, 731, 24-29.
67
 PG 50, 729, 11-24.
68
 PG 50, 729, 32-34.

07-0398_Aram20_07_Barone 121 09-16-2008, 17:12

 122 THE IMAGE OF PROPHET ELIJAH IN PS. CHRYSOSTOM

But after pronounciating the oath, Israel falls into poverty, drought sows
death69, and while everything is consummating for the divine wrath, Elijah
does not even care about what he provoked: Pánta oŒn âpéqane qejlátwç
ôrg±Ç kaì âpÉleto· oûk ∂mele dè t¬ç ˆJlíaç perì oûdenóv70. It’s only at this
point that the author, motivating such a disinterest, hints at Elijah’s
overzelousness: êméque gàr t¬ç hßlwç71.
His zeal almost ravishes the prophet, depriving him of a clear headedness. It
can’t but follow a reproach against the prophet’s cruelty: “What are you do-
ing, Elijah? Let it be so! Young people sinned. Why are children being pun-
ished? Let it be so! Men sinned. Why are flocks dying?” (Tí poie⁄v, ˆJlía;
∂stw, oï neanískoi Ømarton· tí tà paidía paideúontai; ∂stw, oï ãnqrw-
poi Ømarton, tí tà ktßnj sunapoqnßskousi;)72.
As in the pseudochrysostomic homilies previously examined, therefore, Is-
rael's punishment, even if necessary to redeem the people, progressively re-
veals all its excess.
The homilist’s favour towards Elijah, and his subsequent celebrative intent
are however clear also in the intepretation of the events following the starting
of drought, particularly in the intepretation of his journey towards Zarephath
of Sidon. Note first of all that, differently from the texts above examined, the
command given to the prophet to go to river Cherit has the only aim to grant
him water and food. The ravens are not a device to convert him, even less to
outrage him, given that, according to our author and explicitly disputing with
interpretation of Jewish kind, they can’t be impure as they are God’s crea-
tures73.
As for the widow’s episode, the aim for which Elijah is given the order to
go to Zarephath of Sidon, comments the author with patent apologetic intent,
is to make the prophet have consciousness of what is happening around him.
Elijah in fact had no consciousness of Israel suffering: ˆEpeid® gàr oûk ≠Çdei
ˆJlíav tà ginómena (ên ënì gàr tópwç êkaqéheto, oûk ∂blepe t®n oîkou-
menik®n sumforán)… êgeírei aûtòn ö Qeóv… ÿna kån oÀtwv îdÑn
ˆJlíav tà ginómena, âziÉsjÇ tòn Despótjn aûtoÕ doÕnai üetón74.
God could have nourished him without forcing him on a journey. But he
pushes him to move, so that, along the way, he may become aware of his peo-
ple’s doom: Pémpei oŒn aûtòn dià toÕto t®n makràn ödòn êkeínjn, oûx
Üv m® dunámenov aûtòn êke⁄ tréfein ö Qeóv, âllˆ Üv qélwn êpide⁄zai
t¬ç ˆJlíaç t®n sumforán, ÿna âziÉsjÇ aûtòn perì brox±v75. In short,
69
 PG 50, 729, 51-60.
70 PG 50, 729, 60-62.
71
 PG 50, 729, 62.
72
 PG 50, 729, 63-730, 2.
73 PG 50, 730, 8-23.
74
 PG 50, 730, 28-41.
75 PG 50, 730, 41-44.

07-0398_Aram20_07_Barone 122 09-16-2008, 17:12

 F.P. BARONE 123

Elijah’s inflexibility, his supposed cruelty, are really, according to this reading
of the event, just determined by the ignorance of the pain produced. So
Elijah's actions appear justified.
When, however, concluded by his journey, Elijah doesn’t look as if he could
bend and doesn’t allow the drought to end, the author again reproaches the
prophet’s cruelty and again considers his zeal exaggerated and its effects as-
similated to drunkenness: E¤ta oûdè oÀtwv êke⁄nov êkámpteto, âllà âpo-
noíaç tinì kexrjménov oÀtwv êbádihe t®n ödón, âsplagxnían peribeblj-
ménov, oûdenòv lógon poioúmenov· ¿sper e¤pon gàr âpò hßlou êméque.
Tí âponenójsai, ˆJlíaç; tí tosaútjn ênedúsw âpanqrwpían;76
The device excogitated by God to make the prophet meek is the experience
of sin. Elijah, who doesn’t know any mercy, as if he were free from sin (Üv
ânamártjtov)77, is forced to experience it in order to learn to be more tolerant
with others. The circumstance that will move Elijah to reflection is his escape
from Queen Jezebel: on such an occasion, in fact, he loses his trust in God,
escaping into the desert for 40 days78. He who had closed the sky and stopped
rain, he who had defeated Baal’s priests and had dared reproach king Ahab for
his wicked behaviour, is shaking discouraged in front of a woman79.
Elijah’s fault, so as the one done by Israelits, is a sin of faith. He loses his
trust in God and, with it, one of the traits that are peculiar to him, the
parrhesia, that freedom of speech which belongs only to God’s friends:
‰Efugev· poÕ ∂stin ™ paÄÅjsía êkeínj;80and again, a little forther: PoÕ
∂stin, ˆJlía, tà t±v paÄÅjsíav êkeínjv;81
Note that, from an exegetical point of view, the interpretation given to this
event of Elijah is not coherent with the Biblical tale: the escape from Queen
Jezebel, told in chapter 19 of the First Book of Kings, is in fact subsequent to
the end of the famine – which occupies, instead, the end of chapter 18 – and
cannot be its cause.
As for Elijah’s character, instead, the benevolent attitude towards him re-
turns in the last lines of the text: the experience of sin doesn’t invalidate his
merits. The sin, the seriousness of which is however in different occasions ex-
plicitly moderated, was permitted by God only to allow the prophet to wear the
mantle of mercy (¨Or¢çv p¬v mikr¬ç ämartßmati sunexwrßqj pese⁄n ÿna
ölókljron xit¬na filanqrwpíav êndúsjtai;)82.

76
 PG 50, 730, 48-53.
77 PG 50, 734, 41.
78
 1 Kings 19, 1 sqq.
79
 PG 50, 734, 7-23.
80 PG 50, 735, 4-5.
81
 PG 50, 735, 33-736, 1.
82 PG 50, 736, 7-8. Close to the absolutely celebrative tones and the motives of the work here

examined, there is another pseudochrysostomical text, the homily On the prophet Elijah and on
Jezebel. It is reported in just one manuscript, the Parisinus Coislin Gr. 121, ff- 137-139 (saec.

07-0398_Aram20_07_Barone 123 09-16-2008, 17:12

 124 THE IMAGE OF PROPHET ELIJAH IN PS. CHRYSOSTOM

CONCLUSION

The Greek texts examined up to now are heterogeneous with regard to tone,
but relatively uniform with regard to themes. Substantially, in fact, they treat a
common subject: the love of God for men in comparison with zeal of the
prophet Elijah, who is subjected to a process of learning philanthropy and
mercy. The devices carried out by God to obtain this result, on the contrary,
vary from text to text, according to the episode selection or the interpretation
of a same event.
As to the position of the different authors towards the prophet, the first
two texts here introduced, the Sermo in Eliam Prophetam and the homily In
Mariam, Martham et Lazarum, lay stress on several occasions on Elijah’s
hardness; the former mantaining a respectful tone towards the prophet; the lat-
ter, on the contrary, expressing disappointment for his behaviour. They appear
very far in the evaluation of the prophet himself, so as in the tones by which
his events are recorded: in the homily In Eliam Prophetam, Elijah is made an
object of admiration, notwithstanding the excesses to which his zeal brings
him. He is just, and his justice deserves even the assumption to heaven, which
can put him forever far away from proximity with sinners. The homily In
Martham, Mariam et Lazarum, on the contrary, never hints at Elijah’s justice,
nor says anything of his virtue: on the contrary, he is generally defined with
terms semantically referred to the sphere of hardness, whereas the tones by
which God is imagined to address him are often not only severe, but in some
cases even disdainful.
The last text examined, the homily In SS. Petrum apostolum et in Eliam
prophetam, even if it recognizes the prophet’s zeal excessive, which is more
than once recollected to the image of drunkenness, reveals an evidently cel-
ebrating intent and at times obviously apologetical. Emphasis is lain on Isra-
el’s guilt and of the Just’s loneliness, so that an exemplar punishment is
unavoidable. Still, Elijah’s cruelty is considered the produce of a non-con-
sciousness of the evil done. At least, the sin in which he falls, if in one way is
however for him to experience the need of mercy, is however light, it is instru-
mental, doesn’t affect his virtue at all.

XIV), up to now not published, which contains a collection of agiographic texts, arranged ac-
cording to the order of the byzantine liturgical calendar. The ms. is presented in A. Ehrhard,
Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der griechischen
Kirche von der Anfängen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts, TU 50, Leipzig 1937, pp. 203-210.
As I was unable to obtain the microfilm reproduction of the ms., I’m leaving out this homily in
this contribution. A French translation of the text is published in E. Poirot, Le saint prophète
Elie…, op. cit., pp. 115-122. The scholar, in introducing the translation, suggests that the homily
On the prophet Elijah and on Jezebel depends on the homily In SS. Petrum apostolum et in Eliam
prophetam, providing as evidence the similarities characterizing the two texts.

07-0398_Aram20_07_Barone 124 09-16-2008, 17:12