See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272399808

Romanos Melodos on the Raising of Lazarus

Article  in  Byzantinische Zeitschrift · December 2014

DOI: 10.1515/bz-2014-0021

CITATION READS

1 675

1 author:

Barbara Saylor Rodgers

University of Vermont
17 PUBLICATIONS   132 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Vocabulary of character in Cassius Dio View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Barbara Saylor Rodgers on 08 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DOI 10.1515/bz-2014-0021 BZ 2014; 107(2): 811–830

Barbara Saylor Rodgers

Romanos Melodos on the Raising of

Lazarus
Abstract: Through a close reading of Kontakion XXVI, this paper demonstrates
that Romanos the Melodist provides a novel treatment of the raising of Lazarus,
omitting most of the details from the gospel of John and avoiding many of the
themes found in prose commentators on the episode. Romanos’ understanding
of the story is based more upon Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians than on the
context in the gospel where it is found. In this kontakion, Lazarus’ resuscitation
demonstrates the power of faith and affirms belief in the resurrection of Christ.
Romanos employs the device of having one’s enemy proclaim one’s victory when
he adapts themes and methods of Syriac dispute poems to reinforces this mes-
sage of faith and resurrection via the testimony of Hades and Thanatos in the
second half of the kontakion.

Adresse: Prof. Dr. Barbara Saylor Rodgers, Department of Classics, University of Vermont, 481
Main Street, Burlington VT 05405, USA; bsaylor@uvm.edu

D. M. Lazare Ponticelli

Οὕτως καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν· σπείρεται ἐν φθορᾷ, ἐγείρεται ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ.

Paul I Cor. 15.42

Romanos’ kontakia are poetic homilies, a genre developed by the early sixth cen-
tury.¹ A preacher of a prose homily frequently began with an episode of Scrip-

The following bibliographical abbreviations will be used: Grosdidier = J. Grosdidier de Ma-

tons, Romanos le Mélode: Hymnes I–V. Paris  – ; Marchadour = A. Marchadour,
Lazare. Histoire d’un récit. Récits d’une histoire. Paris ; Kremer = J. Kremer, Lazarus. Die
Geschichte einer Auferstehung. Text, Wirkungsgeschichte und Botschaft von Joh , – .
Stuttgart . – English translations of Kontakia XXVI and XXVII can be found at http://www.
uvm.edu/~bsaylor/RomanosTrans.pdf and http://www.uvm.edu/~bsaylor/RomanosTrans.
pdf.
 P. Maas, Das Kontakion. BZ  ()  – , investigates the kontakion’s Syrian and
Greek, prose and verse predecessors. He concludes that the kontakion, developing Syrian church
hymns and Greek homilies into a Greek verse form more highly structured than the Syrian
originals, is a Greek synthesis. See J. Grosdidier de Matons, Romanos le Mélode et les origines

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
812 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 107/2, 2014: I. Abteilung

ture, explained its significance to his audience, and encouraged his listeners to
lead a pious Christian existence or warned against going astray. The methodol-
ogy may be exegetical, descriptive, or apologetic (asking, for example, “Why
does God allow the devil to exist?”). A kontakion would contain the same sort
of advice with rhetorical devices appropriate to poetry. Set to music, each kon-
takion contained three traditional elements: (1) a prooimion stating the theme
and introducing (2) the refrain, the last words of the prooimion, which become
the last words of each of the following strophes, and (3) an acrostic derived
from the initial letter of each strophe. The author’s name often occurs in the
acrostic. In the kontakion on the raising of Lazarus, Romanos employs one of
his favorites, ΤΟΥ ΤΑΠΕΙΝΟΥ ΡΟΜΑΝΟΥ (the humble Romanos’). Romanos’
teaching is not always so apparent as in a prose homily. He conveys advice or
exegesis indirectly by how he retells a story, what episodes he chooses to include
or to emphasize, what dialogue he writes for the characters, whose point of view
he expresses. Not a major theologian, Romanos displays a consistent set of be-
liefs and interpretations of the divine,² as well as a gentle nature that shuns un-
pleasant descriptive excess.
The question of originality in thought, as opposed to expression, is an old
one. Scholars have investigated possible influences on Romanos, and it is true
that a number of his kontakia display similarities to extant prose homilies by
Greek predecessors; the influence of Ephraem Syrus can often be discerned as
well.³ Yet Romanos does not copy anyone;⁴ he often refers directly or obliquely

de la poésie religieuse à Byzance. Paris , ch. II and III; C. Hannick, Le Kontakion dans
l’histoire de la musique ecclésiastique byzantine. Ostkirchliche Studien  ()  – .
 See K. Mitsakis, The afterlife or the metaphysical dimension in the work of Romanos the
Melodist. EEBS  ()  – ; D. Krueger, Romanos the Melodist and the Christian Self
in Early Byzantium. st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, London  –  August
. http://www.byzantinecongress.org.uk/plenary/IV/IV_C_Krueger_ed.pdf; J. Koder, Posi-
tionen der Theologie des Romanos Melodos. Anzeiger der Österreichischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften in Wien, Philos.-Hist. Klasse  ()  – .
 Maas, Kontakion (as footnote  above) ; E. Wellesz, A history of Byzantine music and
hymnography. Oxford , , citing T. Wehofer, Untersuchungen zum Lied des Romanos
auf die Wiederkunft des Herrn. Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien,
philos.-histor. Klasse /. Wien ,  – . Wehofer’s parallels were to the Greek version
of Ephraem; see the remarks of Grosdidier V.  – : although he was not convinced that
Romanos used Syriac sources, it is unlikely that the poet, a native of Emesa, knew only Greek,
and more recent scholarship has demonstrated that he must have known and read the writings
of Ephraem. See especially W. L. Petersen, The Diatessaron and Ephrem Syrus as sources of
Romanos the Melodist. CSCO , Subsidia . Louvain , and idem, The dependence of
Romanos the Melodist upon the Syriac Ephrem: its importance for the origin of the Kontakion.
VigChr  ()  – . Both L. van Rompay, Romanos le mélode, un poète syrien à

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
 B. Saylor Rodgers, Romanos Melodos on the Raising of Lazarus 813

to canonical and non-canonical literature. In Kontakion XXVI⁵ on Lazarus he of-

fers a unique interpretation of the episode, a Pauline interpretation of John,⁶ and
demonstrates in the sixth strophe that he understands death and resurrection as
Paul does. His omission of most of the gospel story after Christ’s departure for
Bethany and focus on the infernal powers’ grief implicitly reinforce the same
message.
The two kontakia attributed to Romanos on the raising of Lazarus, based on
John 11.1– 12.16, differ in theme, motif, and treatment. In Kontakion XXVI Roma-
nos begins by discussing death, human grief, and the necessity of faith, with a
transition to Christ’s receipt of the sisters’ letter in strophe 3. Strophes 4– 7 en-
compass the description of delay, more information about Martha and Mary, ref-
erence to Paul, and the apostles’ reaction to the news of Lazarus. As Christ and
his disciples set out for Bethany in strophe 8, the scene shifts to the underworld
(strophes 9 – 17) where, aware of Christ’s footsteps, Hades complains to Thana-
tos, who reproaches him as a glutton. When these two figures witness Lazarus’
body reassembling⁷ they mourn together over their soon to be lost power,
while remembering how Elijah and Elisha had also robbed them. As they talk,

Constantinople, in J. den Boeft / A. Hilhorst (eds.), Early Christian poetry, a collection of essays.
Leiden ,  – , and A. Cameron, Disputations, polemical literature and the formation
of opinion in the early Byzantine period, in G.J. Reinink / H. L.J. Vanstiphout (eds.), Dispute
poems and dialogues in the ancient and mediaeval Near East. Leuven ,  – , have
argued that Romanos, as others, moved between two linguistic and cultural worlds, or inhabited
both at the same time.
 Except when he does, e. g., copying Justinian almost verbatim in refutation of heresy in the
fourth kontakion on the resurrection: see notes with parallel passages in Grosdidier IV.  –
.
 The numbers for Kontakia XXVI and XXVII in Grosidier are  and  respectively in the
edition of P. Maas / C. A. Trypanis, Sancti Romani Melodi Cantica. Oxford .
 Although chronologically Paul was earlier, and thus the Lazarus narrative in John can be
interpreted as an affirmation removing the negatives of I Cor. . – : see J. P. Martin,
History and eschatology in the Lazarus narrative. Scottish Journal of Theology  ()  –
:  and, more generally, A. E. Bernstein, The formation of hell. Death and retribution in
the ancient and early Christian worlds. Ithaca / London ,  – ,  – .
 Christ’s divine odor reaches the tomb first and drives corruption from Lazarus (strophe ).
Ephraem Az. . says that Christ’s odor diffused throughout Sheol functioned as emetic: yet
this was at Christ’s death, not Lazarus’. Res. . also credits the month of Nisan for its
perfumes that announce the coming of the lord. I have used translations of G. A. M. Rouwhorst,
Les hymnes pascales d’Ephrem de Nisibe. Analyse théologique et recherche sur l’évolution de la
fête pascale chrétienne à Nisibe et à Edesse et dans quelques Eglises voisines au quatrième
siècle. Supplement to Vigiliae Christianae / (Étude) and / (Textes). Leiden . See also J.
Teixidor, Le thème de la descente aux enfers chez Saint Éphrem. L’orient syrien  ()  –
: .

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
814 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 107/2, 2014: I. Abteilung

Christ arrives at the tomb, and the last strophe (18) contains the poet’s prayer for
salvation and resurrection of the faithful. As in a narrative hymn, the poet com-
mences with an invocation, describes the works that demonstrate the deity’s
power, and ends with a brief prayer.⁸ Half the kontakion offers commentary
upon the miracle by several characters, but no retelling of the gospel after
John 11.15: this kontakion does not reveal who does not believe, but who does;
that is the message of Christ to his disciples.
Kontakion XXVII combines various elements of the entire story, and while it
follows the account in John 11– 12, some events are out of order, the author’s
focus being on Christ’s later passage into Jerusalem and the plots against both
his life and that of the revived Lazarus, with the added detail, not in John, of
the serpent (Satan) pierced by the cross (XXVII 10.6 – 7). The second kontakion
is so different from and inferior to the first that Grosdidier de Matons was
right to question its authenticity.⁹
In both kontakia, as in earlier commentaries and sermons, Lazarus figures
as a precursor, like John the Baptist, but with different actions and results.
The arrival of John the Baptist in the world below was the first announcement
of the coming redemption,¹⁰ but the departure thence of Lazarus was a more im-
mediate sign. This is explicit in, e. g., Ephraem C.Nis. 41.12 and Nat. 8; Amphilo-
chius of Iconium Oration on the four-day dead Lazarus 4 and 7, Basil of Seleucia
Homily on Lazarus 12, Hesychius Homilia I in sanctum Lazarum 2,¹¹ and in vari-
ous works of Romanos relating to the passion.¹² John’s gospel clearly portrays

 Cf. E. Catafygiotu Topping, The poet-priest in Byzantium. The Greek Orthodox Theological
Review  ()  – ; J. H. Barkhuizen, Romanos Melodos. Essay on the poetics of his
kontakion “Resurrection of Christ” (Maas-Trypanis ), I. BZ  ()  – : .
 Grosdidier III  – .
 E g., D. Sheerin, St. John the Baptist in the lower world. VigChr  ()  – ; M.
Simonetti, Praecursor ad inferos. Augustinianum  ()  – .
 See M. de Merode, L’accueil triomphal de Jésus selon Jean,  – . Revue théologique de
Louvain  ()  – :  – ; Kremer ,  – ; E. Delebecque, Lazare est mort.
Biblica  ()  – : ; Marchadour  – ; on the importance of Lazarus to
Ephraem, T. Buchan, “Blessed is he who has brought Adam from Sheol”. Christ’s descent to the
dead in the theology of Saint Ephrem the Syrian. Piscataway NJ ,  – ; on Am-
philochius’ interpretation see J. H. Barkhuizen, Homily  of Amphilochius of Iconium: “On the
Four-day [Dead] Lazarus”. An essay in interpretation. Acta Patristica et Byzantina  ()  –
.
 XXXII , XXXV , XXXVI , XXXVII , XL , XLIII , XLVI .

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
 B. Saylor Rodgers, Romanos Melodos on the Raising of Lazarus 815

the raising of Lazarus as promise and proof, and Romanos’ predecessors who
preached on the theme reaffirm this.¹³

The First Kontakion on Lazarus

In the discussion that follows my interests lie in both the substance and the
manner of Romanos’ interpretation of the Lazarus narrative in Kontakion
XXVI, the independence of his vision and clear indications of his theology.
The prooimion sets the theme: the resurrection of Lazarus, defeat of Hades,
pity for the sisters’ tears, and the refrain that Christ is life and resurrection.¹⁴
The kontakion’s message of faith overrides other meanings inherent in the Laza-
rus story and thus truly reproduces the evangelist’s insistence upon the impor-
tance of faith.¹⁵ There is nothing negative: no hint of the later entry into Jerusa-
lem and Christ’s passion or the reaction of the residents of Judaea. The
counterpoint to the sisters’ faith is the long argument and lament between Tha-
natos and Hades which occupies half the kontakion. Their sorrow is the believ-
ers’ joy: death is not the end but the beginning of eternal life, complete with a
new eternal body. The infernal powers’ distress reaffirms human faith as Christ’s
worst enemies proclaim his victory.
Earlier prose sermons on the Lazarus episode have several motifs in com-
mon: linking of the raising of Lazarus with the resurrection of Christ, the Jews’
stubborn persistence in error, the faith of Lazarus’ sisters, the freeing of the
just from the world below.¹⁶ Superficially, the account in Kontakion XXVI resem-

 Occasionally there is added an explanation that Christ did not want all the dead rising on
this occasion, only the one whom he called. [Chrys.], PG , .; Basil of Seleucia, PG ,
. – .
 Petersen, Diatessaron (as footnote  above)  observes that both here and in Kontakion
XLV (where it is the refrain) Romanos writes life and resurrection, not, as in John .,
resurrection and life; he attributes this word order to Syriac, not Greek, tradition. The words in
that order also occur in the homily on Lazarus and on Mary and Martha attributed to Eustathius
of Antioch (§  line  in the edition of J. H. Declerck, Eustathii Antiocheni, patris Nicaeni,
opera quae supersunt omnia. CCSG, . Leuven ). Declerck ccccxlvii–ccccxlix dates
that homily to the second half of the fifth century, although its final form possibly to the second
quarter of the sixth.
 See J. Zumstein, Foi et vie éternelle selon Jean, in O. Mainville / D. Marguerat (eds.),
Résurrection: l’après-mort dans le monde ancien et le Nouveau Testament. Montréal / Paris
,  – , especially .
 J. H. Barkhuizen collects and discusses various common motifs in two articles: Lazarus in
the tomb – and the topos of the Lament of Hades. Ekklesiastikos Pharos  ()  – , and
The reconstitution and reanimation of Lazarus. Ekklesiastikos Pharos  ()  – .

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
816 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 107/2, 2014: I. Abteilung

bles homilies by Basil of Seleucia, [Chrysostom], or others,¹⁷ but Romanos omits

the first two motifs, despite their prominence in the gospel of John. Without tell-
ing the whole story he leaves the audience in anticipation. As he says (XXVI 5.2–
3), we all know what will happen with Lazarus. He has adapted the form of a
dialogue from a model such as one of Ephraem’s poems of mutual abuse be-
tween Satan and Death¹⁸ and combined this element – half of the kontakion –
with an emphatic statement of faith and denial of grief at human mortality.
The inspiration for his approach to the Lazarus motif is Paul’s epistles rather
than any work of Ephraem or Greek prose homily.
In both I Thess. 4 and I Cor. 15 Paul states that the living ought not to believe
that those who have gone to rest have no hope; he affirms the ultimate resurrec-
tion and the clothing of the departed in new immortal bodies (I Cor. 15.50 – 55).¹⁹
Romanos rarely cites Paul by name, but regards him as important when he does.
In one of the most personal episodes in the kontakia, The Adoration of the Cross
(XXXIX 5 – 10), the good thief sets out for Paradise and on the way sings about
the cross and life. In this kontakion, Romanos claims Paul as one also chosen
and changed by Christ (XXXIX 20.5 – 11). Again on the theme of “the call,” at
XLVII 21.7– 10 Romanos explains that Christ recruited Paul to replace Judas.²⁰
In the kontakion on Lazarus, too, Romanos specifically cites Paul as one who un-
derstood and taught that sleep meant death (XXVI 6.5 – 7).

 See brief discussion in R. Maisano, Le fonti patristiche di Romano il Melodo. Nea Rhome 
()  – :  – . R. J. Schork, The sources of the Christological hymns of Romanos the
Melodist. DPhil Thesis. Oxford ,  –  concludes that the only likely patristic sources
are three attributed to Chrysostom; since the dates and authors of these are not known, it is hard
to tell who borrowed from whom, if any borrowing occurred. On  Schork lists the biblical
sources of the allusions in the kontakion, and on  concludes, “The sources of this kontakion
are Scriptural, and there is no evidence of dependence on any extant Greek Patristic works.”
 E. g., C.Nis.  – , although in Romanos’ kontakion there is more abuse and mourning
than contest; closer analogies are C.Nis. , . Teixidor, Thème (as footnote  above)  notes
the importance of Death in Ephraem, although Ephraem did not invent the personification,
which is found in canonical and apocryphal writings. A good overview is S. P. Brock, Syriac
dialogue poems: marginalia to a recent edition. Le Muséon  ()  – , or: Syriac dispute
poems: the various types, in Reinink/ Vanstiphout, Dispute Poems (as footnote  above)  –
. For a more specific example, see the contribution of G.J. Reinink to the same volume: Ein
syrisches Streitgespräch zwischen Tod und Satan,  – , and P. Grelot, Un poème de Saint
Ephrem: Satan et la Mort. L’Orient syrien  ()  – .
 Marchadour  cites Ambrose (De excessu fratris sui Satyri Liber. PL , ) discus-
sing this belief and using Paul I Cor . – .
 Cf. also the prayer at LV . – .

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
 B. Saylor Rodgers, Romanos Melodos on the Raising of Lazarus 817

Romanos begins with a dilemma, humans mourning the departed although

death is the beginning of eternal life.²¹ He asks “Why do we not believe in Christ
saying ‘He who believes in me will not die even if he sees decay’ … ?” Decay is
essential to the story; Lazarus’ condition is required for the miracle and its effect.
The word φθορά (decay) also informs Paul’s argument (I Cor. 15.42). Romanos
does not argue that Christ waited to revive Lazarus until no one could possibly
deny that he had died,²² but to demonstrate the steadfastness of the sisters’ be-
lief. Basil of Seleucia, Homily on Lazarus 4 claims that the delay ensures that
Lazarus will die so he can be called back from death, a typical explanation in
prose exegesis that arises from the text of the gospel.²³
Romanos’ opening exhortation in the first person plural includes himself
among those who mourn before a tomb, as we ought not to do (οὐκ ὀφείλομεν,
1.2); by repetition of vocabulary he affirms his message as if he were weaving a
chain: both our life and our bodies are πρόσκαιρος (“for the time”, temporary),
our mortal body is temporary clothing (πρόσκαιρον ἔνδυμα) but Christ will en-
clothe us (ἐνδύσῃ) in our immortal body (σῶμα):

Ἐξῆλθον μὲν τῆς προσκαίρου ζωῆς, ἀπαλλαγέντες τῶν πόνων αὐτῆς·

πέλουσι δὲ ἐν ἀναπαύσει, προσδοκῶντες τὴν θείαν φαῦσιν·
ἔχει τούτους ὁ φιλάνθρωπος ἀποδύσας τὸ πρόσκαιρον ἔνδυμα,
ἵν’ ἐνδύσῃ αἰώνιον σῶμα. (1.4– 7)

They have gone from their temporary life, shedding its toils;
they are going to their rest, expecting divine illumination;
the lover of mankind holds them after stripping off their temporary garment,
that he may put on their eternal body.

 Zumstein, Foi (as footnote  above)  note  says the phrase “vie éternelle” (ζωὴ
αἰώνιος in various cases, once ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή) occurs seventeen times in the gospel of John; with
the help of the TLG, I counted nineteen, as opposed to two or three occurrences each in the other
gospels.
 See Marchadour  on Chrysostom.
 Kremer  discusses Ephraem’s similar argument in his commentary on the Diatessaron.
For an English translation see C. McCarthy, Saint Ephrem’s commentary on Tatian’s Dia-
tessaron. An English translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS  with introduction and Notes.
Oxford ,  –  (XVII ). Equally typical is the theme of Martha’s doubt, when she
greets Christ and then hesitates to have the tomb opened. Barkhuizen, Homily  (as footnote 
above)  describes this element in Amphilochius of Iconium.

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
818 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 107/2, 2014: I. Abteilung

The phrase τὸν παρόντα καιρὸν βιῶσαι (to live through present time) in the last
strophe will echo this beginning. Romanos’ choice of the word φαῦσις²⁴ for illu-
mination is influenced by several factors: an idea of a heavenly existence,²⁵ a re-
birth prompted by the birth of light in Genesis, and an allusion to Paul.²⁶ Φαῦσις
also creates a word-play with rest, ἀνάπαυσις. There are many such verbal echoes
in the kontakion, either assonance or rhyme, primarily near the beginning and
end, as in an oration. There is no way to tell exactly what Romanos understands
by the αἰώνιον σῶμα (eternal body), but the source of the idea is this: δεῖ γὰρ τὸ
φθαρτὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ τὸ θνητὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανα-
σίαν. (Paul I Cor. 15.53).²⁷
Romanos answers his question about mourning at the beginning of the sec-
ond strophe, stating that a man of faith holds power. Three concepts operate
here: faith, power, and possession (another kind of power), for not only the faith-
ful person (ὁ πιστός) but faith itself (πίστις) has power and is a great possession
in itself. Within four lines are three different verbs for “be powerful”: δύναται,
ἰσχύει, κρατεῖ; the participle ἰσχύουσαν (having power) also modifies πίστιν
(faith), and κέκτηται (possesses) in the second line is echoed by κτῆμα (posses-
sion) in the fourth:

 Basil of Caesarea, Homiliae in Hexaemeron . (S. Giet, Basile de Césarée. Homélies sur
l’hexaéméron, nd edition. SC,  bis. Paris ) discusses the odd word for illumination
employed in Genesis . –  and explains the choice and its meaning.
 The word is rare but occurs, outside of a few passages in the Septuagint and works com-
menting on them, in discussions of astronomy and astrology. The verb ἐπιφαύω (to shine upon)
is somewhat less rare, again in both astronomical and theological contexts.
 Paul uses the compound ἐπιφαύω in Eph. . in the context of arising from death to have
Christ shine upon one: Ἔγειρε, ὁ καθεύδων, καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ
Χριστός (Awaken, sleeping one, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine upon you).
 Equally there is no agreement among scholars as to how Paul understood the answer he
gave to the Corinthians, or even, perhaps, what question he was answering. For some definitions
and discussions of the problem, see, e. g., R. J. Sider, St. Paul’s understanding of the nature and
significance of the resurrection in I Corinthians XV  – . Novum Testamentum  ()  –
; A. J. M. Wedderburn, The problem of the denial of the resurrection in I Corinthians XV.
Novum Testamentum  ()  – ; J. Gillman, A thematic comparison:  Cor : – 
and  Cor : – . Journal of Biblical Literature  ()  – ; J. Holleman, Resurrection
and parousia: a traditio-historical study of Paul’s eschatology in  Corinthians . Leiden ,
 – ; J. S. Vos, Argumentation und Situation in  Kor. . Novum Testamentum  ()
 – ; J. R. Asher, Polarity and change in  Corinthians : a study of metaphysics, rhetoric,
and resurrection. Tübingen ,  –  and Σπείρεται: Paul’s anthropogenic metaphor in 
Corinthians : – . Journal of Biblical Literature  ()  – .

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
 B. Saylor Rodgers, Romanos Melodos on the Raising of Lazarus 819

Ὁ πιστὸς πάντοτε ὅ τι ἂν βούλεται δύναται,

ἐπειδὴ κέκτηται τὴν τὰ πάντα ἰσχύουσαν πίστιν
δι’ ἧς παρὰ Χριστοῦ ἰσχύει ὃ ζητεῖ.
<Ἡ> πίστις <γὰρ> μέγα κτῆμά ἐστιν, ἣν ἔχων ἄνθρωπος πάντων κρατεῖ·

He who believes always can accomplish what he wishes,

when he possesses faith having power over all things
through which from Christ he has power over what he seeks.
For faith is a great possession, having which a man is powerful over everything.

With this affirmation, Romanos turns to the narrative. Because Mary and Martha
believed that Christ would save their brother, the poet can affirm both their faith
(εἶχον αὐτὴν “they had it”, 2.5) and their brother’s (τὸν πιστὸν ἀδελφὸν “the
faithful brother”, 2.6).²⁸ Faith permeates the third strophe too: Christ is called
by faith and says that faith dictated the letter, infallible hope wrote it, and
love sealed it.²⁹ Romanos transposes John 11.6 and 11.7, for in the gospel account
Christ first waits, then tells his disciples the news. Although it is part of Christ’s
dialogue, the question Τί δὲ κρύπτω τὰ φαινόμενα; (why do I conceal what has
happened? 3.8) rings truer to the poet’s own intention.³⁰ In the fourth strophe
Romanos reveals that the scripture says Christ waited two days before setting
out. The poet’s reason differs from John’s;³¹ the poet says the reason was to dem-
onstrate the steadfastness of the sisters’ love (ἀγάπη), love that the poet has
transferred from Jesus’ regard for these three people (John 11.5) to their love
for him. Because of their love, Christ saved one of the women and gave the
other a crown. Romanos has gotten ahead of the story when he declares, just be-
fore the refrain, that Jesus promised the sisters their brother would arise. He ex-
plains his allusion to the sisters in the next strophe, which he begins by posing
an hypothetical question from the congregation:

 In this Romanos differs from John Chrysostom (PG , ), who argues that Mary and
Martha’s faith was inadequate because their understanding was incomplete: Marchadour .
 H. Hunger, Romanos Melodos, Dichter, Prediger, Rhetor, und sein Publikum. JÖB  ()
 – :  cites line  as evidence of the language and practice of the chancery.
 Another word-play. Romanos has not taken this response to the disciples from the gospel,
and although I have translated τὰ φαινόμενα as “what has happened”, the literal meaning is
“what has come into view” or “what appears”.
 In the gospel of John there is no clear reason offered for the delay, although Lazarus’ falling
ill comes about to make glorious the son of God (John . ἵνα δοξασθῇ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ). Basil
of Seleucia, Homily on Lazarus  claims that the reason for the delay is explicitly not to drive
away illness but to let Lazarus die so he can be called back from death.

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
820 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 107/2, 2014: I. Abteilung

“Ποίαν μὲν ἔστεψε δήλωσον,

ποίαν δὲ ἔσωσε· τὸν γὰρ Λάζαρον οἴδαμεν ὅτι
τῆς τοῦ Ἅιδου χειρὸς ἐξήρπασε Χριστός.”

“Reveal which he crowned

and which he saved; for we know that Lazarus
from the hand of Hades Christ snatched away.”

This statement allows the poet to omit most of the gospel narrative from this
point. He identifies Mary as the sister saved from seven demons, Mary Magda-
lene in Luke 8.2, and the same woman who bathed Christ’s feet with oil and
wiped them with her hair. Grosdidier de Matons suggests that Romanos be-
lieves Mary Magdalene is Mary the sister of Martha.³² Romanos relates the bath-
ing of feet because John identifies Mary the same way (John 11.2): this may or
may not be a proleptic identification in John (John 12.3).³³ There is an unidenti-
fied woman in Luke 7.37– 50, ἁμαρτωλός (a sinner), who anoints Christ’s feet,
weeps upon them, and wipes them with her hair. Romanos adds to the anointing
of feet an unusual detail, naming Christ as τὸν δοτῆρα τῶν ἀρωμάτων (the giver
of spices, 5.5), an expression unique to the poet. He may have coined this phrase
because he will soon relate the effect arising from the heavenly odor that reaches
Lazarus in the underworld: Christ’s feet will “cleanse the whole person from the
stain of the trickster (ὁ δόλιος, 5.7).” This is the only reference to Satan in the
kontakion. The detail may be an allusion to Christ’s response to Judas in John
12.7– 8 that Mary is anointing him for the tomb, and that as a result of his
death humanity will be saved. But there is a more immediate and specific role
for Jesus’ feet to play when Hades hears the footsteps in the eighth strophe.
Hades’ terror inspired by footsteps stands in for representations of Satan trod un-
derfoot, the image also related by Paul I Cor. 15.27. In the same context (I
Cor. 15.26) Paul identifies the final enemy as Thanatos.³⁴ Romanos also adds

 Grosdidier III  footnote.

 Thus M. de Merode, L’accueil (as footnote  above)  – ; M.W.G. Stibbe, A tomb with a
view: John . –  in narrative-critical perspective. New Testament Studies  ()  – :
; E. Reinmuth, Lazarus und seine Schwestern. Theologische Literaturzeitung  () –
: . Not C. S. Keener, The Gospel of John. A commentary. Peabody MA , .: “John
also writes about Mary’s anointing of Jesus’ feet (: – ) as if his audience knows that a
particular Mary anounted Jesus’ feet (:), evidencing pre-Johannine tradition on this count
even though that tradition is no longer extant outside this Gospel.” See discussion in Kremer
 – . [Chrys.], PG ,  ff also identifies Mary as the one who washed Christ’s feet.
 Cf. H. Clavier, Le drame de la mort et de la vie dans le Nouveau Testament, in F. L. Cross
(ed.), Studia Evangelica III: Papers presented to the Second International Congress on New

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
 B. Saylor Rodgers, Romanos Melodos on the Raising of Lazarus 821

that Martha was crowned for her loving service (Luke 10.38 – 42), although Luke
says nothing of a crown. The poet may be giving Martha what she had missed.³⁵
The first word of the sixth strophe resumes the narrative with the signal
πάλιν … ἔφησεν (again he said); Christ tells the apostles that Lazarus has
gone to sleep. Given the information relayed so far in the kontakion, the disciples
should interpret sleep as a good sign for a person who is ill, but Romanos omits
that detail from John 11.11– 13. He assumes that the congregation knows the gos-
pel already and instead offers commentary in his own persona by referring to
Paul. He adorns his remarks with several word-plays and again he affirms that
resurrection will come to believers, even after decay of their mortal bodies. Ro-
manos avails himself of both uncommon words and analogies. In the reference
to Paul calling sleep death,³⁶ he uses the rare word θνῆσις, although Paul had
expressed the idea primarily with verbs and participles, not nouns (and in the
next strophe Romanos uses θάνατος, not θνῆσις). With a nod to the beginning
of the fourth gospel, Romanos refers to Christ’s announcement as ὁ τοῦ
Λόγου λόγος (the Word’s word).³⁷ The final word-play refers to the mystery of
the eucharist,³⁸ as it comes after the question Πῶς δὲ πίπτει ὁ ἐσθίων αὐτόν;
(How does the one who partakes of him fall?). Τὸ μυστήριον φυλακτήριον |
ἔχει ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ (This mystery, i. e. the eucharist, has a phylactery in the soul,
6.10 – 11). Romanos asserts that the person of faith, who partakes of Christian
communion, will be resurrected even if his body decays, and reaffirms the mes-
sage in Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians about changing and awaking uncor-
rupted that Paul introduces with the word mystery (I Cor. 15.51– 53).

Testament Studies held at Christ Church, Oxford, , Part : The New Testament Message.
Berlin , , on identification of Thanatos and Satan in Paul. Bernstein (as footnote 
above) , writes that Paul I Cor.  –  equates Thanatos and Hades; he must mean that
because Paul does not cite Hosea . exactly (ποῦ ἡ δίκη σοῦ, θάνατε; ποῦ τὸ κέντρον σοῦ,
ᾅδη; (where is your penalty, Death? where is your sting, Hades?), he equated the two figures.
Paul wrote ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ νῖκος; ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ κέντρον; (where, Death, is your
victory? where, Death, is your sting?). See also V. P. Furnish, The theology of the First Letter to
the Corinthians. Cambridge ,  with footnote .
 The crown appears elsewhere to my knowledge only in the homily attributed to Eustathius
on Lazarus and on Mary and Martha  (lines  –  Declerck, as footnote  above): Ἀρκεῖ
σοι, Μάρθα, ἡ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁμολογία εἰς στέφανον δόξης (Christ’s concession suffices for you,
Martha, for a crown of glory).
 Romanos is correct; Paul does, in certain contexts, call the dead those who have gone
asleep: I Thess. ., ., .; I Cor. ., ., ., ., ., ..
 For similar plays with Word, word, logic (or its lack), see also XIV ., XXXII ., XXXV .,
XXXVI ., XL .; K. Mitsakis, The language of Romanos the Melodist. München , § .
 As Grosdidier explains III  footnote . See John . – .

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
822 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 107/2, 2014: I. Abteilung

Romanos returns to the gospel narrative, claiming the prediction of Lazarus’

death as a θαῦμα πρὸ θαύματος (wonder before wonder). Some prose homilies
treat the raising of Lazarus as the miracle preceding the resurrection of Christ,³⁹
and later in the kontakion Romanos avers that Lazarus’ resurrection presages the
release of others from Hades. Here the prediction itself and foreknowledge im-
press and frighten the disciples. At this point Romanos leaves the narrative
from John, until we learn in strophe 17 that Christ has arrived at the tomb,
and even then the story has no continuation, no ending. From the eighth strophe
nearly to the end, the keepers of the dead in the underworld continue the nar-
rative from their own peculiar point of view.
When Jesus sets out for Bethany in the eighth strophe, the congregation does
not follow. Romanos reminds us that Christ’s presence actually fills the universe
no matter where his human body is,⁴⁰ and he is aware of all those dwelling in it
as if they were poor little locusts (ὡς ἀκρίδας οἰκτράς). Although both Scripture
and commentators thereon contain the phrase ὡς ἀκρίδας or ὡσεὶ ἀκρίδας,⁴¹ Ro-
manos is the only author who casts these insects in pitiful guise, the better to
display their, and our, lack of stature compared to the deity.
The poet next directs our attention to the underworld where Thanatos and
Hades lurk, not noticing Christ’s arrival until he reaches Bethany (8.4). Hades
hears his footsteps and asks Thanatos who is trampling on his head. He suspects
it is Jesus, who will demand payment (ἀναπράξας ἡμᾶς), and predicts that Laza-
rus will escape, like the widow’s son. The description of feet πατήσαν-
τες τὴν κεφαλήν (trampling on my head, 8.7) is often found with the compound
verb καταπατεῖν; in his commentary on Hesychius, Homilia I in sanctum pascha
6, Aubineau writes that the expression for trampling on the head of Hades or

 E. g., [Chrys.], PG , .

 . – : ἔρχεται … σώματι· τῇ γὰρ θεότητι περιέπει ἀεὶ καὶ κατέχει τὴν γῆν καὶ τοὺς ἐκ γῆς
(he goes in body for in divinity he embraces always and occupies the world). Cf. Amphilochius of
Iconium, In Lazarum (C. Datema, Amphilochii Iconiensis opera. Turnhout ,  – ) lines
 –  Ἡνίκα Λάζαρος τὴν παροῦσαν ζωὴν ἀπεδύσατο φυσικῶς, οὐκ ἦν ὁ κύριος ἐν Βηθηνίᾳ
παρὼν τοῖς σωματικοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς, τῇ δὲ θεότητι πανταχοῦ παρὼν καὶ τὰ πάντα πληρῶν (When
Lazarus put off the present life according to nature, the Lord was not present in Bethany with his
bodily eyes, but with his divinity is present everywhere fills everything). The notion is not
peculiar to Christian writers; cf. Aratus, Phaen.  – , Virgil, Ecl. ., Aen. . – .
 Isaiah ., Numbers ., Psalm .., Jeremiah ., .. Phrases incorpor-
ating ὡς ἀκρίδας or ὡσεὶ ἀκρίδας can be found in: Chrys., De incomprehensibili dei natura  line
, Expositiones in Psalmos vol.  p. , Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses ad illuminandos .,
., [Chrys.], De pseudoprophetis vol.  p. , Theodoret, Historia religiosa . (and often).

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
 B. Saylor Rodgers, Romanos Melodos on the Raising of Lazarus 823

Death is probably inspired by Paul I Cor. 15.25 – 27.⁴² Hades continues his address
to Thanatos in the ninth strophe as he explains that he can no longer properly
digest the dead, especially if they are rotted, although he admits, employing as-
sonance, that he rejoices to take them up: χαίρω καὶ αἴρω θαπτομένους (9.5; I re-
joice and take up the buried).⁴³ He calls Thanatos victorious and unconquerable,
as if he were addressing an emperor, and says to stop his labors and not bring
him more to eat; Thanatos brings him corpses that he vomits up as soon as he
gulps them down. Echoing the verb used in the previous strophe for demanding
payment, Hades says, “I pay back (ἀναπράττομαι) those within and am robbed
(ἁρπάζομαι) of those you are preparing” (9.6); he tells Thanatos to follow
Jesus. This remarkable advice does not occur in other Greek dialogues, although
in Ephraem, C.Nis. 36.16 – 18, 37.11, 38.5 – 6, Death pledges faith to Christ on his
own initiative when he understands the situation, but not until after Jesus’
death.
Thanatos reacts with hostility. He reproaches Hades for his insatiable glut-
tony, in service of which Thanatos has worn himself out bringing the dead
(10.1– 5). The role that Romanos assigns to Thanatos is reminiscent of his func-
tion in Ephraem’s Carmina Nisibena, but unlike that in Greek homilies. Basil of
Seleucia and [Chrysostom], for example,⁴⁴ give Thanatos or Hades a monologue
of lament, and while they may say that Hades will be emptied, they do not often
represent Hades as an individual. The two infernal powers involved in these
prose predecessors are usually Thanatos and Satan.⁴⁵ Ephraem’s poems have
two main characters of the underworld, Satan and Death; Sheol and Sin may
be named but they are not prominent speakers in the dialogues. In Ephraem,
however, Death is usually the glutton.⁴⁶ Romanos leaves Satan out of the

 M. Aubineau, Homélies pascales (cinq homélies inédites): Hésychius de Jérusalem, Basile

de Séleucie, Jean de Béryte, Pseudo-Chrysostome, Léonce de Constantinople. Introduction, texte
critique, traduction, commentaire et index. SC, . Paris , .
 That Lazarus was four days dead is important in all exegeses; Romanos emphasizes the
physical state of the dead man beginning in the first strophe. He paraphrases Jesus’ message ὁ
πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ κἂν ἀποθάνῃ ζήσεται (who believes in me even if he die will live) throughout
the kontakion adding or substituting the detail of decomposition to death (., ., .,
. – , ., .), often just before the refrain.
 Basil of Seleucia, Homily on Lazarus ; [Chrys.], Third Homily on Lazarus. PG , .ff;
[Chrys.], Second Homily on Lazarus PG ,. –  inserts an apostrophe to Thanatos.
 After Thanatos’ lament in Basil of Seleucia, Basil addresses him as diabolos (§ ); there is
some kind of assimilation at work.
 E. g., Az. . (Rouwhorst), and in Cruc. . (Rouwhorst) Satan (the evil one) kills to pile
up bodies for greedy Death. At C.Nis. ., however, Death sends rivers of corpses into Sheol,
which remains thirsty for more. Romanos employs the same imagery in the tenth strophe. Cf. VIII

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
824 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 107/2, 2014: I. Abteilung

story,⁴⁷ makes personified Hades the glutton, and gives Thanatos a more sympa-
thetic role; for the first two strophes of their interaction Thanatos describes
Hades’ obesity in a variety of ways: he tells him to admonish his belly instead,
which he has never fed fully up to now.⁴⁸ Hades had been as boundless
(ἡπλώθης = stretched out, unfolded) as the sea, receiving rivers of the dying
(ποταμοὺς τελευτώντων δεχόμενος) and never obtaining satiety (κόρον)
(10.4– 7). Continuing the metaphor, Thanatos says that the life of mortals always
seemed like water to Hades so he widened himself out (ἐπλάτυνας) and never
stopped drinking; he should not keep filling himself, but the one approaching
will provide the good cleaning out that he needs (11.1– 3, 7– 11). Thanatos
takes the idea of Christ as physician to an extreme, and while Romanos does
not use any form of the word ἰατρός, what he describes sounds like a medical
procedure.
In response to Hades’ advice to embrace Christ, Thanatos’ reply, interwoven
with his complaints of the other’s voracious appetite, is at first acerbic: he advis-
es Hades to take his own advice (10.9 – 11); the one approaching is hostile to
Hades and will break down his gates (11.4– 7). Hades finally responds in self-
pity that his friend Thanatos not only rebukes him but enjoys his discomfiture
(12.1– 3). Soon Hades describes what he sees happening to Lazarus as the
dead man’s limbs are preparing to put themselves back together in anticipation
of Christ’s arrival. The sight terrifies both Thanatos and Hades who hold onto
each other in fear. What prompts Lazarus’ members to recompose themselves
is Jesus, who has sent the foul odor (δυσοσμία,τὴν ὀσμήν), which has left Laza-
rus along with the worms, in the direction of the infernal powers and restored
the previously stinking Lazarus (τὸν ὀζέσαντα) to a fragrant condition (εὐωδί-
ασε) (12.7– 10).⁴⁹ Romanos, using Hades and Thanatos as witnesses but narrating
in his own person, describes the activity of the limbs as creeping (together) like
ants (12.6), an image that conjures up busy, scurrying haste. Hades had already
emphasized the previous state of decay when he says that φθορά (decay) had

. –  where Romanos says that Thanatos is thirsty for men (Θάνατος ὁ διψῶν ἡμᾶς), that death
and man-hating Satan want to eat up the three men in the furnace.
 As often in the kontakia, Thanatos and Hades have more prominent roles in the underworld
than Satan.
 On the linked themes of excess and Hades, cf. Prov. . and Isaiah ..
 Others had noted the effect of Christ’s odor, e. g., Basil of Seleucia, On Lazarus  πῶς
θανάτου πνέουσαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὴν φύσιν Χριστὸς ἀθανασίας εὐωδίαν ὤσφρανεν (how Christ
made fragrant the nature of men reeking of death); [Chrys.], PG , . – . Maisano, Fonti
patristiche (as footnote  above) , discusses parallels. Barkhuizen (as footnote  above)
 discusses the odor of Christ among other topoi relating to homiletic treatment of Lazarus in
the tomb.

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
 B. Saylor Rodgers, Romanos Melodos on the Raising of Lazarus 825

sundered τὰ μέλη (limbs), and that in future the one who had rotted (φθαρείς)
and was ashen (τεφρωθείς) would arise (12.4, 11).⁵⁰ The adjective ashen should
not apply in the case of one interred without cremation, but it occurs in Romanos
VIII 20.10, V 12.6, XLVIII 1.2, originating in the phrase from dust to dust, ashes to
ashes, as in two passages on Lazarus in Chrysostom.⁵¹
Thanatos and Hades must witness monstrous and horrible things
(τεράστια, φρικτά 13.3). Their world has been turned upside down. They had re-
joiced in what distressed human beings, and now they suffer the opposite. It is a
genuine reversal for these figures to be terrified by the sight of physical decay
undoing itself and a dead body restored to life: the odor of God’s son, having
passed through his friend, makes his body ready for the call of the life-giver.
It arranges the hair, weaves the membranes, puts the viscera together, stretches
out all his veins and sends blood through them again, and restores the arteries,
so that Lazarus will arise when he is called. Romanos makes clear that the body
is ready for the verbal summons; the body’s recreation of itself, prompted by the
divine odor, eliminates any temporal delay in Lazarus’ emergence from the tomb.
In prose homilies there is usually discussion of how Lazarus managed to come
forth from the tomb still wrapped in his shroud, why Christ did not tell him first
to rise and then to come forth, and so on. Basil of Seleucia in his homily on Laza-
rus asks (10.1) which came first, the return of the soul or the reformation of the
body? But he does not answer his question. Although Romanos is not the first to
emphasize the extent of Lazarus’ dissolution and putrefaction, he describes this
physical process in its undoing: what is unpleasant is worth contemplating only
when its effect is passing. This scruple does not affect others; for example, Basil
of Seleucia, On Lazarus 9 offers a wealth of detail on the condition of Lazarus’
body, which he affirms had already been sundered from the soul: innards rav-
aged, worms present, putrid eyes, sinews torn asunder, shoulders and hands
separated, bones without harmony, nerves and marrows and veins dissolved

 Grosdidier III  –  footnote  writes that Lazarus is in a truly lamentable condition for
one only four days dead, and marks the similarity in the detailed description of the decay
(coming in the next strophe) to [Chrys.], PG , . – . Hesychius, Homilia II in sanctum
Lazarum  has the same wording for part of his description.
 PG , . ( – : Ἀλλ’ ὁ τελευτήσας σήπεται καὶ διαφθείρεται, φησὶ, καὶ κόνις
γίνεται καὶ τέφρα. Καὶ τί τοῦτο, ἀγαπητέ; δι’ αὐτὸ μὲν οὖν τοῦτο μάλιστα χαίρειν δεῖ [But one
who has died will rot and decay, he says, and become dust and ashes; and what of this, beloved?
One ought rather to rejoice at this very thing]) and , . ( – : Πάντα σποδὸς, πάντα
τέφρα καὶ κόνις, θρῆνοι καὶ ὀδυρμοὶ, οὐδενὸς δυναμένου βοηθῆσαι λοιπὸν, οὐδ’ ἀπελθοῦσαν
ἐπαναγαγεῖν τὴν ψυχήν [All is ashes and dust, dirges and lamentations, no one is any longer
able to help, nor to lead back up the departed spirit]).

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
826 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 107/2, 2014: I. Abteilung

to juices. Romanos finesses the unpleasant processes. R. Maisano⁵² emphasizes

the broader implications of the body’s putrefaction as the corruption of human
beings due to sin, and that Romanos draws upon this expectation.
Hades and Thanatos resume the narrative as they exclaim in unison over
their loss of power. The fourteenth strophe contains a remarkable string of
plays on words, often with rhyme. To show that the tomb has become a location
for metamorphosis,⁵³ Romanos says that it has become like a dye that changes
decay into life (14.4): ἐγένετο ἡ ταφὴ ὡς βαφὴ μεταποιοῦσα φθορὰν εἰς ζωήν.
There is a textual problem with the fifth line, which may say that the tomb
(μνῆμα) is like a thread (νῆμα) which anyone who wants can cut without tiring.
If that is the reading, in addition to the effect of assonance⁵⁴ there may be an
allusion to the Fates in Greek mythology who cut the thread to end a person’s
life, although here Romanos equates cutting a thread with a reversal of death.
He will later (18.2) liken the μνῆμα (tomb) to a βῆμα (seat). When Thanatos
and Hades further lament that anyone can bring anyone else back to life they
enumerate brother, son or daughter, thus covering, as Grosdidier de Matons
notes,⁵⁵ the three restorations performed by Christ during his lifetime: Lazarus,
the widow’s son in Luke 7.11– 17, and the daughter in Mark 5.22– 24. Hades and
Thanatos believe that they have become objects of derision for those who
dwell on earth (οἱ γεώδεις) and that any creature from earth, slave or free, mortal
or immortal (ἐπίγειος and οὐράνιος), can restore a dead and decayed person to
life merely by saying the word (ῥῆμα). Romanos goes a step farther than Paul I
Cor. 15.40, who distinguishes between earthly and heavenly bodies and glory
(ἀλλὰ ἑτέρα μὲν ἡ τῶν ἐπουρανίων δόξα, ἑτέρα δὲ ἡ τῶν ἐπιγείων), but is not
saying that the dead return to life in this manner.⁵⁶
In the fifteenth and sixteenth strophes the infernal powers relate briefly the
stories of Elijah and the widow’s son and Elisha whose dead body had the power
to restore a person to life by its contact. These are standard themes in other
works on the topic of Lazarus.⁵⁷ There is homoioteleuton at ends of colas within

 R. Maisano, Romanos’s Use of Greek Patristic Sources. DOP  ()  – : .
 In Basil of Seleucia, Homily On Lazarus  Thanatos laments that τάφοι (tombs) have
become ζώντων γαστέρες (wombs of the living); same simile at [Chrys.], PG . – .
 Cf. XLIX . ὅτι ῥήμασιν ὡς νήμασιν πάλιν ἐχρήσαντο (because they again used words like
threads).
 Grosdidier III  –  footnote .
 In XLIII , Romanos discusses a somewhat later part of this epistle (I Cor. .) and its
abuse by heretics.
 E. g., Basil of Seleucia, On Lazarus , [Chrys.], PG . – , . – , Ephraem, C.
Nis. ..

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
 B. Saylor Rodgers, Romanos Melodos on the Raising of Lazarus 827

two lines at 15.4– 5 (Ἀνάλωσε τῆς πτωχῆς τὴν τροφήν, δεδώκαμεν δὲ ἡμεῖς τὴν
τιμήν· | ὁ μὲν προφήτης διετράφη, ὁ δὲ Θάνατος διεστράφη: He used up the poor
woman’s sustenance, but we paid the price. | The prophet was fed, but Death
was twisted up) and here it is possible, given the third-person reference to Tha-
natos and Hades (in 15.6), that Romanos had inserted a comment in his own
voice from line 5 to the end of the strophe.⁵⁸ Thanatos and Hades speak again
in the next strophe; they maintain that this new defeat at the hands of Christ
has made them forget what they suffered from Elijah and Elisha.⁵⁹ Yet they com-
plain of welts left by the prophets, the marks of which they still carry (16.4– 5),
and say that Elisha’s feat especially confirmed that not one of the faithful ever
dies (16.7– 12) ὅτι θνῄσκει τῶν πιστῶν οὐδὲ εἷς.
In the penultimate strophe Thanatos and Hades continue to speak, mourn-
ing the awakening of the dead man, singing a dirge (θρηνοῦντες) for all their
power. It is heartening for the congregation to contemplate the infernal powers
performing a death ritual over themselves and their loss of power over humanity
(17.1– 3), in a reversal of the sorrow described in the first strophe. Meanwhile
Christ has arrived and Romanos returns to the story. Twice within a few lines
he states that it was Christ who created Lazarus:

Ὁ πλάστης δὲ δι’ ὃν καὶ παρῆν κατέλαβε τοῦ νεκροῦ τὴν ταφήν,

μετὰ τὸ δῆθεν ἐρωτῆσαι ποῦ ὁ Λάζαρος κατετέθη·
εἰρωνείᾳ γὰρ ἠρώτησεν ὁ παλάμῃ ποιήσας τὸν ἄνθρωπον,
“Ποῦ κατάκειται Λάζαρος;” λέγων·
θέλει γνῶναι ἃ ἐπίσταται· (17.4– 8)

But the creator took hold of the tomb of the dead man on whose behalf he was
present,
after having asked – as if he needed to – where Lazarus had been laid.
He asked in pretend ignorance, he who made mankind with his hand,
“Where does Lazarus lie?” he said;
He wants to learn what he knows.

Because Romanos wants the listeners to be sure to understand that there was no
ignorance involved in the question he modifies τὸ ἐρωτῆσαι with the particle

 Grosdidier III  footnote  notes the theory of J. Papadimitriou that the dialogue of
Hades and Thanatos stops after verse  because they are referred to in the third person, and then
recommences later.
 Cf. C.Nis. . –  on Elijah and Elisha and how their miracles were nothing compared to the
new defeat, and C.Nis. . –  on Elisha and how Jesus is more powerful.

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
828 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 107/2, 2014: I. Abteilung

δῆθεν (17.5) then explains that he asked in pretend ignorance (17.6) and that he
wanted to learn what he already knew (17.8).⁶⁰ The poet employs the analogy of
the deity’s question, “Where are you, Adam?” He was not the first: Basil of Se-
leucia, On Lazarus 5 cited not only the question to Adam but four other exam-
ples, many of the same ones as in Epiphanius, Ancoratus 31 and 109.⁶¹ Gregory
of Nazianzus had problems with John 11.34.⁶² Another sort of explanation, one
that Gregory of Nazianzus had tried and found unsatisfactory, can be seen, for
example, in Ephraem, De Azymis 15.27: as god he gave Lazarus life but as
man he asked about his tomb.⁶³ Romanos disposes of the question more eco-
nomically.
In the last strophe, the poet addresses a final prayer to the merciful father of
the meek,⁶⁴ who once raised up Lazarus with his voice; he affirms the gospel ac-
count without retelling it. In the second line he compares the raising of Lazarus
to getting someone out of a chair (ὁ ἐκ τοῦ μνήματος ὡς ἐκ βήματος ἐξαναστή-
σας). The end of the prayer is a statement of human submission to the divine will
and a request to be called to life after death.
Echoing the opening strophe, Romanos reasserts the temporality of mortal
existence when he prays for people to live the present life in accordance with
the deity’s will; τὸν παρόντα καιρὸν βιῶσαι in 18.5 is another way of saying ἡ
πρόσκαιρος ζωή (1.4). He includes both living and dying (ζῶντες ὁμοῦ τε καὶ
θνῄσκοντες) with the deity’s will and pleasure. As he asks for salvation in the
final lines, he includes the messages both of this strophe and the entire homily:
ἀλλὰ ζῶντα κρατεῖς καὶ θανόντα καλεῖς (18.11), a final rhyme and reminder of the
summons. Despite the emphasis on faith through the first part of the kontakion,

 Grosdidier (as footnote  above)  discusses two ways in which one might understand
this passage, taking εἰρωνεία either as affected ignorance or as outright irony, although there is
not much difference between the two in effect. See also Hunger, Romanos (as footnote 
above)  –  on irony in this passage and in others.
 See Marchadour  for discussion of Chrysostom, and  –  for further examples.
 See D. F. Winslow, Christology and exegesis in the Cappadocians. Church History  ()
 – :  – .
 Rouwhorst translation. In his commentary on the Diatessaron, Ephraem offers an example
of affected ignorance: “How astute is your wisdom, O our Lord! For, you revealed the death of
Lazarus to your disciples from afar off, but you asked those who were seeking a pretext [against
you] where his burial place was, so that, after they would have reproached you for your
question, your miracle would make them wonder.” Similarly, [Chrys.], PG , . –  ex-
plains Christ’s question as revelation by deliberate mixing of human and divine. In discussion of
this text, J. H. Barkhuizen, Pseudo-Chrysostom, Homily “On the four-day [dead] Lazarus”. Acta
Patristica et Byzantina  ()  – : , observes that most patristic commentators explained
that the question was meant to bring the bystanders along as witnesses.
 The adjective he often employs to describe himself in the acrostics: τοῦ ταπεινοῦ Ῥωμανοῦ.

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
 B. Saylor Rodgers, Romanos Melodos on the Raising of Lazarus 829

Romanos reveals that what ensures eventual resurrection is in fact love (18.10):
οὐκ ἀπόλλεις γὰρ τὸν ποθοῦντά σε (you will not destroy the one who loves you).
It is a fitting end to a message of expectation and affirmation in which Romanos
carefully avoids the sorrows and sordid details of mortal experience for a mes-
sage of eternal life and joy.

Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy

Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
 Authenticated | bsaylor@uvm.edu author's copy
Download Date | 2/5/15 1:14 AM
View publication stats