> Irenaeus Victorinus Augustine Ps-Athanasius
>
>Mt. Man Man Lion Man
>Mc. Eagle Lion Man Calf
>Lc. Calf Calf Calf Lion
>Jo. Lion Eagle Eagle Eagle
>
The remarks of St Augustine in the De Consensu Evangelistarum, I, 9 may be
of some interest. I quote from the translation in the 'Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers' series:
"For these reasons, it also appears to me, that of the various parties who
have interpreted the living creatures in the Apocalypse as significant of
the four evangelists, those who have taken the lion to point to Matthew, the
man to Mark, the calf to Luke, and the eagle to John, have made a more
reasonable application of the figures than those who have assigned the man
to matthew, the eagle to Mark, and the lion to John. For, in forming their
particular idea of the matter, these latter have chosen to keep in view
simply the beginnings of the books, and not the full design of the several
evangelists in its completeness, which was the matter that should, above
all, have been thoroughly examined.
"For surely it is with much greater propriety that one who has brought under
our notice most largely the kingly character of Christ, should be taken to
be represented by the lion. Thus it is also that we find the lion mentioned
in conjunction with the royal tribe itself, in that passage of the
Apocalypse where it is said, "The lion of the tribe of Judah hath
prevailed." For in Matthew's narrative the magi are recorded to have come
from the east to inquire after the King, and to worship Him whose birth was
notified to them by the star. Thus too, Herod, who himself also was a king,
is [said there to be] afraid of the royal child, and to put so many little
children to death in order to make sure that the one might be slain.
"Again, that Luke is intended under the figure of the calf, in reference to
the pre-eminent sacrifice made by the priest, has been doubted by neither of
the two [sets of interpreters]. For in that Gospel the narrator's account
commences with Zacharias the priest. In it mention is also made of the
relationship between Mary and Elisabeth. In it, too, it is recorded that
the ceremonies proper to the earliest priestly service were attended to in
the case of the infant Christ; and a careful examination brings a variety
of other matters under our notice in this Gospel, by which it is made
apparent that Luke's object was to deal with the part of the priest.
"In this way it follows further, that Mark, who has set himself neither to
give an account of the kingly lineage, nor to expound anything distinctive
of the priesthood, whether on the subject of the relationship or on that of
the consecration, and who at the same time comes before us as one who
handles the things which the man Christ did, appears to be indicated simply
under the figure of the man among those four living creatures.
"But again, those three living creatures, whether lion, man, or calf, have
their course upon this earth; and in like manner, those three evangelists
occupy themselves chiefly with the things which Christ did in the flesh, and
with the precepts which He delivered to men, who also bear the burden of the
flesh, for their instruction in the rightful exercise of this mortal life.
Whereas John, on the other hand, soars like an eagle above the clouds of
human infirmity, and gazes upon the light of the unchangeable truth with
those keenest and steadiest eyes of the heart."
The opinion of Jerome has prevailed over that of Augustine, in making the
Lion the symbol of Mark and the Man the symbol of Matthew; but Augustine's
remarks about St John have won general assent, and are constantly cited by
commentators. One might compare his Tractate XXXVI on St John's Gospel;
and indeed I shall do so tomorrow.
Oriens.
* * * * *
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|