8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

1/117

© , , � | �.��/� -��

  ( �) �-

brill.com/vc

VigiliaeChristianae

 Jerusalem’s Lost Etymology: How AugustineChanged Latin Eschatology 

 Ellen ScullySeton Hall University 

ellen.scully@shu.edu

 Abstract

This article analyzes the transition from one etymology for Jerusalem (“city of peace”) to

another (“vision of peace”) in the late fourth century and the efects of this transition on

the Latin eschatological tradition. My thesis is that Augustine’s conscious preference for

the etymology of “vision of peace” over that of “city of peace” is motivated by the greater

usefulness of “vision of peace” within his already established eschatological system that

links vision with beatitude. Augustine’s preference for “vision of peace” inuenced the

eschatological trajectory of the Latin patristic and medieval tradition.

Keywords

etymology – eschatology – Jerusalem – Augustine – Hilary of Poitiers

Etymology has sufered the same fate as numerology in the modern age: it isconsidered at worst fanciful and silly, and at best interesting but unimportant.

 Yet Patristic authors considered etymology, like numerology, to be an essen-tial aspect of Scriptural studies. They believed that the translation of namesrevealed the meaning embedded within the Scriptural text.

This article focuses on the connection between etymology and eschatol-ogy. In particular, I analyze the transition from one etymology for Jerusalem(“city of peace”) to another (“vision of peace”) in the late fourth century and

the efects of this transition on the Latin eschatological tradition. Hilary ofPoitiers, writing in the late 360s, ofers the etymology of ciuitas pacis, or “city ofpeace” for Jerusalem. While Augustine shares this etymology in his early writ-ings, by 394/5 in his Commentary on Psalm 9, he ofers a diferent etymology

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

2/117

 

  ( ) -

for Jerusalem—which thereafter becomes his standard—namely uisio pacis,or “vision of peace.” My thesis is that Augustine’s conscious preference for theetymology of “vision of peace” over that of “city of peace,” which is motivated

by the greater usefulness of “vision of peace” within his already establishedeschatological system, deeply inuenced the eschatological trajectory of theLatin patristic and medieval tradition.

One question this article addresses is whether etymology served as a basisfor theological argumentation or simply as a supporting argument. In this arti-cle I argue that etymology can serve either function. In Hilary of Poitiers, it isunclear whether etymology had a priority such that it shaped the developmentof his eschatological thought or whether it entered later as a useful “proof” for

an already articulated eschatology. However, Augustine clearly relegates ety-mology to the secondary role of supporting proof. His switch from the etymol-ogy “city of peace” to “vision of peace” is motivated by his assessment of theirrespective utilities to his already existent eschatology. The later Latin traditioninherits both the etymology of “vision of peace” and a vision-centered escha-tology from Augustine. The mutually supportive nature of these two—the ety-mology and the vision eschatology—links them together so strongly that asLatin eschatology becomes dened by its articulation of the afterlife as thebeatic vision, the etymology “vision of peace” entirely dominates and sup-presses the etymology “city of peace.” Due to constraints of space, I limit myselfin this article to a study of eschatological usage of the etymology in Hilary and

 Augustine, with only general indications of the later tradition. Further study ofthe Latin eschatological trajectory will be necessary to validate all the conclu-sions I advance.

 After a discussion of the role of etymology in Patristic writings, I will dividethis article into three parts to advance my argument that Augustine’s pref-erence of “vision of peace” alters the trajectory of Latin eschatology. First, I

show that while the etymology of “city of peace” has a Latin provenance, theetymology of “vision of peace” is an etymology that exists in the Greek tradi-tion as early as Philo and is imported into the Latin tradition in the late fourthcentury by both Augustine and Jerome through their contact with Greeksources. Second, through a study of Hilary and Augustine, I show that thesetwo diferent etymologies for Jerusalem support two very distinctive eschato-logical systems. In particular, while Hilary’s use of “city of peace” is tied to aneschatology of communal participation in the body of Christ, Augustine uses

“vision of peace” to provide the Scriptural foundation for an eschatology thatemphasizes the connection between vision and beatitude. Third, I argue that

 Augustine’s use of the etymology of “vision of peace” and its correspondingeschatology of vision becomes normative in the Christian tradition with tworesults: 1) the Latin etymology of “city of peace” is discarded by later Patristic

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

3/117

   ’  

  ( ) -

and medieval authors, and 2) modern scholars make signicant textual mis-takes through their neglect of the pre-Augustinian use of “city of peace” as anetymology for Jerusalem.

  The Early Christian Use of Etymology 

Etymology is both part of the classical ars rhetorica and a common trope inChristian writings. In this article I look at the etymological use of the word“Jerusalem” in the gures of Hilary of Poitiers and Augustine. Since both Hilaryand Augustine completed the classical curriculum of rhetorical schooling, they

both had been trained in the use of etymology as a standard rhetorical device.Etymology, or the practice of nominis interpretatio  as it was more oftencalled, is a branch of grammar, and was, in fact, the most developed branch ofChristian grammar until at least the fourth century. According to Mark Amsler,onomastics, dictionary-type books containing the etymology of Hebrew namesor places found in Scripture (mostly Old Testament, but also New Testament),

 were the most prominent Christian writings about language and grammarbetween the second and fth centuries. Onomastics reect the Christian con-

 viction in the divine inspiration of Scripture, including the Old Testament, as well as a theory of names in which names express true nature.

For the role of etymology from the ars rhetorica of Late Antiquity to the Grammar of theMiddle Ages, see M. Amsler,  Etymology and Grammatical Discourse in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1989); G. de Poerck, “Etymologia

et origo à travers la tradition latine,” in  ΑΝΑΜΝΗΣΙΣ: Gedenkboek E.A. Leemans (Bruges: DeTempel, 1971) 191-228. For a briefer treatment of the place of etymology in the ars rhetorica 

especially in relation to Augustine, see J. den Boeft, “Some Etymologies in Augustine’s  DeCiuitate Dei  ,”Vigiliae Christianae 33 (1979) 242-259 at 244-246.

Hilary, having commenced his studies in Poitiers, moved to Bordeaux when he was readyto progress from grammar to rhetoric. See H.D. Safrey, “Saint Hilaire et la philosophie,” in Hilaire et son temps: Actes du Colloque de Poitiers (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1968) 247-265

at 250-251. Amsler, Etymology and Grammatical Discourse, 83. Amsler presents the Patristic use of etymology as a tool in anti-Marcion discourse. See

 Amsler,  Etymology and Grammatical Discourse, 83-84: “The discourse of sacred onomastics

presented God’s ‘Hebrew truth’ to hellenized and Romanized audiences and, by claimingto recover the Christian logos  in Hebrew names, countered the exclusionist argument ofMarcion and others that the Hebrew Scriptures polluted the Christian message.”

  That early Christians supported a naturalist theory of names in which names expressnature is witnessed by Origen’s report that in his day the name of God was written in Hebrewscript even in Greek manuscripts. The tetragrammaton was understood as the  name that

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

4/117

 

  ( ) -

Early Christians understood the “interpretation of names” as a practice legit-imated by its presence within Scripture itself. The Patriarchs receive namechanges whose meaning is embedded in the names themselves. Scripture itself

ofers the etymology of these names. Abram’s name is changed to Abrahambecause the etymological meaning of Abraham is “father of many.” When Jacob’s name is changed to Israel, which means “triumphant with God,” he is

told “your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.” The names of Hosea’s chil-

dren are intentionally etymologically prophetic. Not just human names, butmany place names in the Old Testament receive this same etymological treat-ment. After Jacob receives his name change to Israel, he names the physical

location Peniel, which means “face of God” because, as he says, “I saw God faceto face, and yet my life was spared.” Hagar, after receiving the prophecy thebirth of Ishmael, names the place Beer-lahai-roi, which means “the well of theliving one who sees me.”

It was only natural that early Christian exegetes, presented with clear evi-dence of the etymological importance of names, would themselves search outthe etymologies for those names that were not similarly explained within theScriptural text itself. Because most Christians did not themselves possess thenecessary knowledge of Hebrew to understand the names, reference lists weresoon circulated. R.P.C. Hanson has shown that Origen made use of several ofthese etymological lists, probably compiled by Jewish scholars. Besides these

truly conveyed the nature of God. Edmon Gallagher theorizes that this practice resultedfrom a widespread belief among copyists and translators that Hebrew was a holier lan-

guage (i.e. more capable of conveying true meaning) than Greek (E. Gallagher,  HebrewScripture in Patristic Biblical Theory: Canon, Language, Text  [Leiden: Brill, 2012] 120-121).

Scriptural etymology, as the interpretation of Hebrew names, is not limited to the OldTestament, but rather is embedded also in the New Testament, as in Matt 27:33, whereGolgotha is glossed as “place of the skull.”

See Gen 17:5. Gen 32:28.

See Hos 1-2: Jezreel (God sows), Lo-ruhamah (Not loved), and Lo-ammi (No kin of mine).The renaming of Lo-ruhamah to Ruhamah (Loved) and Lo-ammi to Ammi (My kin) isalso signicant.

Gen 32:30.

See Gen 16:14. R.P.C. Hanson, “Interpretations of Hebrew Names in Origen,” Vigiliae Christianae 10 (1956)103-123. Hanson demonstrates that Origen had access to etymological lists both in the

Hebrew and Greek classes, some that were ordered according to Biblical book and verse,some alphabetically (see 107-119). Furthermore he argues that not only the Hebrew class

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

5/117

   ’  

  ( ) -

etymological lists originating in Jewish circles, Christians, such as Eusebius ofCaesarea and Jerome, began composing their own onomastica.

Both Hilary and Augustine commend the use of etymology, or the “interpre-

tation of names,” as a means to understanding the truth of Scripture. Hilarysays, “That very interpretation of names according to the Hebrew meaningconveys no small progress towards understanding.” Likewise, Augustineofers one etymology with these words: “but let us pay attention to how thisname is interpreted, and in this very interpretation of names let us seek theunderstanding of truth.” Both Hilary and Augustine agree that one part ofunderstanding the Scriptural message is understanding the meaning embed-ded in Hebrew names.

 Augustine’s belief in the value of etymologies leads him not only to encour-age his students of Scripture to learn Hebrew, but also to make explicit men-tion of etymological or onomastic sources and commend their utility:

etymologies but also the Greek class are more likely compiled by Jews than Christians(see 121-122).

For the dating of Eusebius’ Onomasticon as prior to 303, see T.D. Barnes, “The Compositionof Eusebius’ Onomasticon,”  Journal of Theological Studies  26 (1975) 412-415. Eusebius’

Onomasticon was translated by Jerome in a work entitled De locis or De situ et nominibuslocorum Hebraicorum liber . Jerome wrote his own onomasticon, entitled Liber interpreta-

tionis Hebraicorum nominum (or sometimes simplyOnomasticon). This work is a revisionand restoration of several 3rd century onomastica (which Jerome mistakenly believedderived from Origen and Philo).

Hilary, Tractatus super Psalmos  53.3 ( 61 130.1-2): Ipsa autem secundum hebraeam proprietatem interpretatio nominis adfert non exiguum nobis ad intellegendum profectum.Unless otherwise noted, all translations of ancient texts are my own.

Augustine,  Enarrationes in Psalmos 38.1 ( 38 401.7-9):nos autem audiamus quid inter-

 pretetur hoc nomen, et in ipsa interpretatione nominis quaeramus intellegentiam ueritatis. Augustine, De doctrina christiana 2.11.16 ( 32 42.1-4; Hill 135-136): “The best remedy forignorance of proper signs is the knowledge of languages; and in addition to the Englishand Latin languages, the people whom I have now undertaken to advise have need ofthe two other languages of the divine Scriptures, namely Hebrew and Greek” [Contraignota signa propria magnum remedium est linguarum cognitio. Et latinae quidem linguae

homines, quos nunc instruendos suscepimus, duabus aliis ad scripturarum diuinarum cog-

nitionem opus habent, hebraea scilicet et graeca . . .]. The English translation is taken fromE. Hill (trans.) Teaching Christianity  (Hyde Park, : New City Press, 1996). “English,”

though not found in the Latin, is added to this translation by Hill in his efort to make Augustine’s text resonate with the English speaker. It should be noted that Augustine’s use of etymology is not limited to Scriptural names.

For his use of etymology as a rhetorical device to interpret pagan terms as ultimatelyderivative from Biblical sources, see den Boeft, “Some Etymologies,” 242-259.

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

6/117

 

  ( ) -

So also there can be no doubt that many Hebrew names, which were nottranslated by the authors of these books, will be of no little value andhelp in solving the riddles of the scriptures, if you can translate them.

 And several men, learned in that language, have conferred what is indeedno small benet on posterity by collecting all such words from the scrip-tures and translating them, and telling us what Adam means, or Eve, or

 Abraham, or Moses; or with place names too, what Jerusalem means, orZion, or Jericho, or Sinai, or Lebanon, or Jordan, or any other names inthat language whose meaning is unknown to us. When these have beentranslated and made plain, the meaning of many gurative expressionsin the scriptures is revealed.

In other words, Augustine is fully aware that the work of interpreting Hebrewnames has already been accomplished with the result that even those who donot excel at Hebrew, such as Augustine himself, are able to pursue the “under-standing of truth” found in the Hebrew etymologies.

Both Hilary and Augustine make frequent recourse to etymology, especiallyin their commentaries on the Psalms. Not only do they use the etymology of

 Jerusalem, but also that of Zion, Babylon, Hermon, Ziphites, Jericho,Tyre, and many more. Since Scripture itself is both a source and supportof theology, etymology, as a valued step in the Patristic understanding ofScripture, is likewise, for both Hilary and Augustine, a source and support fortheir theological conclusions.

Augustine, De doctrina christiana 2.15.23 ( 32 48.7-49.19; Hill 141):Sic etiam multa, quaeab auctoribus eorundem librorum interpretata non sunt, nomina hebraea non est dubita-

ndum habere non paruam uim atque adiutorium ad soluenda aenigmata scripturarum,si quis ea possit interpretari. Quod nonnulli eiusdem linguae periti uiri non sane paruum

benecium posteris contulerunt, qui separata de scripturis eadem omnia uerba interpretati

sunt; et quid sit Adam, quid Eua, quid Abraham, quid Moyses; siue etiam locorum nomina,

quid sit Hierusalem uel Sion uel Hiericho uel Sina uel Libanus uel Iordanis et quaecumque

alia in illa lingua nobis sunt incognita nomina, quibus apertis et interpretatis multae in

scripturis guratae locutiones manifestantur . See also Augustine, De ciuitate dei  16.28 (48 532.1-533.17).

I will discuss Hilary and Augustine’s use of the etymology of Zion later in this article.

I will discuss Hilary and Augustine’s use of the etymology of Babylon later in this article. See Hilary, Tractatus super Psalmos 132.6 ( 61 136.8-10).

See Hilary, Tractatus super Psalmos 53.3 ( 61 130.1-4). See Augustine,  Enarrationes in Psalmos 60.8 ( 39 770.30-31). See Augustine,  Enarrationes in Psalmos 82.7 ( 39 1143.21).

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

7/117

   ’  

  ( ) -

  Statistical Data that Manifests the Provenance and Usage Patterns

of the Two Diferent Etymologies for the Word “Jerusalem”

The etymology of Jerusalem, for which we have two diferent options in thepatristic era, is a somewhat complicated afair. First, while the Old Testamentactually contains two forms of the name— yrûsāim  and yrûsālayim—theoriginal pre-Israelite Hebrew form, as attested, for example, by the abbrevia-tion šālēm in Ps 76:2, was yrûsālēm. While the rst part of the name means“foundation,” the second part designates the Canaanite deity Shalem. The ety-mology of the Hebrew name is then most likely “foundation of Shalem.”

The two patristic etymologies of “city of peace” and “vision of peace” for

 Jerusalem derive from homophonic word associations. Though recent scholar-ship has undermined the connection, even prior to the patristic era the secondhalf of the name was associated, as attested in the Letter to the Hebrews, withsālôm/peace. The rst half of the name is homophonous both with the wordir /city and with third person forms of the verb ra’ah/to see, leading to the twoseparate etymologies of “city of peace” and “vision of peace.”

Searches in Brepolis’ Library of Latin texts and the Thesaurus LinguaeGraecae give us three points of information about the Patristic use of etymolo-gies for Jerusalem. First, in the patristic era there are two diferent etymolo-gies in use for Jerusalem: “city of peace” (ciuitas pacis) and “vision of peace”(ὅρασις εἰρήνης / uisio pacis). The two etymologies overlap in only one author:

 Augustine. Second, while “city of peace” is rst found in Latin texts, “visionof peace” originates in Greek texts. Third, after the introduction of “vision ofpeace” into Latin theology in the late fourth century via Jerome and Augustine,authors in the Latin tradition cease to use “city of peace” with the result that“vision of peace” becomes the exclusive etymology for Jerusalem in both Eastand West.

The etymology “city of peace,” which is signicantly less common than itscounterpart, has only one Greek witness and otherwise is found exclusively inlate fourth to early fth century Latin authors. This etymology is found just

For a brief explanation of the meaning of the name Jerusalem, see D.F. Payne, “Jerusalem,”in The New Bible Dictionary (Downers Grove, : Intervarsity Press, 1999), 557 to 563 at

558-559. In Heb 7:2 “king of Salem” is glossed as meaning “king of peace.” For example, in Gen 22:8, God “will see ( yirʿeh) for himself a lamb.” “City of peace” (as πόλις εἰρήνης) is used in Greek as an etymology for Jerusalem only by

 John of Antioch who, in the fth century, uses it twice as the etymology for Jerusalem.

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

8/117

 

  ( ) -

once each in Ambrose and Ambrosiaster, several times in Hilary, twicein Augustine, once in Maximinus the Arian, and then in a few medievalauthors, all but one of whom are quoting one of these Patristic usages. None

Ambrose, De fuga saeculi  5.6.31 ( 32.2 188.18-22): Et dominus dicit : Tunc qui in Iudaea

sunt fugiant [Matt 24:16] in montes, ubi mons Sion et ciuitas pacis Hierusalem non terrenis,sed uiuis constructa lapidibus et decem milia angelorum, primitiuorum ecclesia, perfecto-

rum spiritus, iustorum deus, qui in sanguine suo melius locutus est quam Abel . It must benoted that Ambrose does not present his use of ciuitas pacis non terrenis as an etymologyof Jerusalem.

Ambrosiaster, Commentarius ad Romanos  10.15 ( 81.1 354.6-7): Denique Hierusalemsuperior ciuitas pacis interpretatur, quae est mater nostra.

Hilary, Tractatus super Psalmos 52.18 ( 61 126.13-15): Haec caro et Sion et Hierusalem est,ciuitas nobis pacis et speculatorium nostrum; 3 times in 147.2 ( 61B 292.4-5): Hierusalemenim est ciuitas pacis; 147.2 ( 61 292.5-8): et, quia domini nostri regnum in pace et una-nimitate sanctorum est—et factus est, inquit , in pace locus eius [Ps 75:3]—, conuentus illebeatorum, qui dei regnum est, Hierusalem tamquam ciuitas pacis est dictus; 147.2 ( 61292.15-16): Sed ciuitas illa, quae Hierusalem est, quae propter unanimitatem ciuitas pacisest ; 147.7 ( 61 296.13): qui ipse Hierusalem et pacis est ciuitas.

Only once does Augustine explicitly use ciuitas pacis  as an etymological reference. See Augustine,  De Genesi contra Manichaeos  2.13 ( 91 134.14-22):sicut Hierusalem, qua-

muis sit uisibilis et terrenus locus, signicat tamen ciuitatem pacis spiritualiter et Sion,quamuis sit mons in terra, speculationem tamen signicat, et hoc nomen in scripturarum

allegoriis ad spiritualia intelligenda saepe transfertur: et ille qui descendebat ab Hierusalem

in Hiericho, sicut dominus dicit, et in uia uulneratus, saucius et semiuiuus relictus est a

latronibus, utique locos istos terrarum, quamuis secundum historiam in terra inueniantur,

spiritualiter cogit intelligi . However, when he returns to the same pericope from Luke10:30 of the man descending from Jerusalem to Jericho, he repeats his use of ciuitas pacis.See Quaestiones euangeliorum  2.19 ( 44 62.1-4): Homo quidam descendebat abHierusalem in Hiericho [Luke 10:30], ipse Adam intellegitur in genere humano; Hierusalem

ciuitas pacis illa caelestis, a cuius beatitudine lapsus est . Maximinus (dubium), Collectio Veronensis: De sollemnitatibus sermones xv, 10.6 ( 8777.10-20):  Ergo dicamus  iste dies que(m) fecit d(omi)n(u)s exultemus et laetemur in eohymnis psalmis canticis spiritalibus dicentes iterum cu(m) proheta factus est in pace locuseius et habitatio eius in Sion in illa Hierusalem caelesti quae dicitur ciuitas pacis habitatioeius in Sion in illa inuisibili sede ubi aeterno regi aeternae referuntur laudes.

Bede, in  In Lucae euangelium expositio  3.10.30 ( 120 222.2210-2213), builds on Augustine’s use (in Quaestiones euangeliorum 2.19): Homo iste Adam intellegitur in genere

humano, Hierusalem ciuitas pacis illa caelestis a cuius beatitudine lapsus in hanc mor-

talem miseram que uitam deuenit . Thomas Aquinas, in Catena aurea in Lucam  10.9 (in A. Guarienti [ed.] Catena Aurea in Quatuor Euangelia, vol. 2, [Rome: Marietti, 1953]151), uses the same text from Augustine:  Homo enim iste ipse Adam intelligitur in generehumano; Ierusalem ciuitas pacis, illa caelestis, a cuius beatitudine lapsus est; Iericho inter-

 pretatur luna, et signicat mortalitatem nostram, propter hoc quod nascitur, crescit, senescit

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

9/117

   ’  

  ( ) -

of the extant onomastica in Latin or Greek contain the etymology of “city ofpeace” for Jerusalem.

On the contrary, the etymology of “vision of peace” is that found in most

onomastica and has a long tradition in Greek (as ὅρασις εἰρήνης) that includesPhilo, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Origen, andDidymus the Blind. In Latin this etymology (as uisio pacis) is rst found in

 Jerome’s  Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum  (The Book of Names)

et occidit . Florus of Lyon, in Collectio ex dictis patrum  (dicti Ambrosii , excerpt 405[ 193 281.1-282.6]), quotes Ambrose’s  De fuga saeculi : Tunc qui in Iudaea sunt fugi-

ant in montes, ubi mons Syon et ciuitas pacis Hierusalem, non terrenis sed uiuis constructa

lapidibus, et decem milia angelorum, primitiuorum aecclesia, perfectorum spiritus iusto-rum, Ihesus, qui in sanguine suo melius locutus Ierusalem quippe uisio pacis dicitu Tunc qui

in Iudaea sunt fugiant in montes, ubi mons Syon et ciuitas pacis Hierusalem, non terrenis sed

uiuis constructa lapidibus, et decem milia angelorum, primitiuorum aecclesia, perfectorum

spiritus iustorum, Ihesus, qui in sanguine suo melius locutus est quam Abel .  The only original (not quoted) use ofciuitas pacis as an etymology for Jerusalem in

the middle ages is found in Aelred of Rievaulx,  Homiliae de oneribus propheticis Isaiae 19.30 ( 2 174.274-280):  Hic est certe huius oneris nis, quo ciuitas confusionis, idest Babylon, cum principe suo, diabolo, aeternis poenis oneranda in infernum demergetur,

et ciuitas pacis, id est Ierusalem, cum suo principe, Christo, quae ONVS BABYLONIS quoonerata est uel prudenter cauit uel magna uirtute sustinuit uel potenter euasit, in caelum

coronanda transferetur . See both F. Wutz, Onomastica Sacra: Untersuchungen zum Liber Interpretationis Nominum

 Hebraicorum des Hl. Hieronymus (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1914-15), and P. Lagarde,OnomasticaSacra (Göttingen: Prostant in aedibus Dieterichianis Luederi Horstmann, 1887).

Philo,  De Somniis 2.250 (Loeb, vol. 5, ed. Colson and Whitaker, 554): ἡ δὲ θεοῦ πόλις ὑπὸἙβραίων Ἱερουσαλὴµ καλεῖται, ἧς µεταληφθὲν τοὔνοµα ὅρασίς ἐστιν εἰρήνης.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata  1.5.29.4 (in O. Stählin and L. Früchtel [eds.]Clemens

 Alexandrinus 2, 3rd ed., 15 [Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1960] 18.18-19): Ἱερουσαλὴµ δὲ«ὅρασις εἰρήνης» ἑρµηνεύεται.

Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio euangelica 6.24.7 (in I.A. Heikel [ed.], Eusebius’ Werke 6, 23 [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913] 293.24-25): Ἱερουσαλὴµ αὐτὴν ἀποκαλῶν («ὅρασιν» γὰρ«εἰρήνης» µεταληφθὲν τοὔνοµα σηµαίνει). See also Generalis elementaria introductio  andCommentaria in Psalmos.

Origen uses ὅρασις εἰρήνης as the etymological denition for Jerusalem four times (andthree additional times in dubious works). See, for example, Origen,  In Jeremiam 13.2 (

238 56.8-10): Ἰεβοὺς οὖν, ἡ Πεπατηµένη ὑπὸ δυνάµεων ἀντικειµένων ψυχή, µεταβέβληται καὶ

 γέγονεν Ἱερουσαλήµ, Ὅρασις εἰρήνης. Didymus, Commentarius in Zacchariam  1.48 ( 83 216.6-9): Ἐὰν οὖν ἡ Ἰερουσαλὴµἡ τελεία καὶ πεφωτισµένη ψυχὴ λαµβάνοιτο εἰρηνικῶς καὶ εὐσταθῶς πάντα θεωροῦσα—µεταλαµβάνεται γὰρ εἰς τὸ «ὅρασις εἰρήνης»—πόλεις τῆς Ἰουδαίας εἰσὶν αἱ ὑποδεέστεραι ψυχαὶτῷ ἔτι προκόπτειν.

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

10/117

 

  ( ) -

 written in 389. Jerome’s Book of Names is a revision, compilation, and trans-lation of several third century onomastica, most of them written in Greek.

 Jerome’s usage of “vision of peace” is a result of his knowledge of the Greek

onomastic and/or theological tradition.Only shortly after Jerome, Augustine also introduces “vision of peace”into the Latin tradition. Augustine’s rst use of “vision of peace” is in hisCommentary on Psalm 9 written around 394/395. Augustine either obtainedthis etymology via Jerome’s  Book of Names or he came across this etymologythrough direct contact either with a Greek etymological list or with the use ofthis etymology by a Greek theologian. After Jerome and Augustine’s intro-duction of the etymology “vision of peace” into the Latin West, it becomes the

dominant Latin etymology for Jerusalem and is found in Apponius, Arnobius

This work is often confused with Jerome’s  De locis  or De situ et nominibus locorum Hebraicorum liber  which was written at the same time. De locis is a translation of Eusebiusof Caesaria’s Onomasticon while Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum (which has

also been called Onomasticon) is a revision and restoration of several 3rd century ono-mastica (which Jerome mistakenly believed derived from Origen and Philo). For the dat-

ing of the  Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum see P. Nautin, “L’activité littérairede Jérôme de 387 à 392,” Revue de théologie et de philosophie 115 (1983) 247-259 at 253-256.In the preface of his  Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, Jerome explains thathe is compiling a book of Hebrew names with their etymologies following the example of

 what Origen ascribed to Philo. Throughout his writings, Jerome uses the etymology uisio pacis 39 times.

For information on the dating of the Enarrationes, see H. Müller “Enarrationes in Psalmos,”

in C. Mayer (ed.) Augustinus-Lexikon, vol. 2, (Basel: Schwabe, 2001) 804-838 at 807, 809-829;M. Cameron, “ Enarrationes in Psalmos,” in A. Fitzgerald (ed.)  Augustine Through the Ages (Grand Rapids, : Eerdmans, 1999) 290-296 at 291. Augustine,  Enarrationes in Psalmos 9.12 ( 38 64.2-6): Ipse habitat in Sion, quod interpretatur speculatio, et gestat imaginemecclesiae quae nunc est; sicut Ierusalem gestat imaginem ecclesiae quae futura est, id est

ciuitatis sanctorum iam angelica uita fruentium, quia Ierusalem interpretatur uisio pacis .Throughout the rest of his writing career, Augustine continues to use the etymology ofuisio pacis 20 times.

F. Van Fleteren says that Jerome’s use of this etymology follows Augustine’s but this is

incorrect as uisio pacis  appears in Jerome’s work approximately ve years before itappears in Augustine (“Jerusalem,” in A. Fitzgerald [ed.]  Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, 462-63 [Grand Rapids, : William B. Eerdmans, 1999]).

Apponius,  In Canticum canticorum expositio 8.6.65 ( 19 209.971-972): Decorautem in

amore pacis monstratur, eo quod  Hierusalem“uisio pacis” interpretetur .

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

11/117

   ’  

  ( ) -

the Younger, Prosper of Aquitane, Caesarius of Arles, Cassiodorus,Isidore, Bede, Gregory the Great, Bernard of Clairvaux, Peter Lombard,Bonaventure, Aquinas, and Eriugena, among others.

Though both Jerome and Augustine introduced “vision of peace” intothe West at about the same time, Augustine’s inuence seems to have beenmore inuential to the succeeding tradition: many appearances of “vision ofpeace” in the later Latin tradition can be traced directly back to Augustine (not

 Jerome). For example, Beatus, Peter Lombard, and Gregory the Great all use

Arnobius the Younger, Expositiunculae in Lucam 5 ( 25 298.86-87): Hierusalem uisio

 pacis interpretatur: Iericho autem saeculum est .

This etymology is found twice in Prosper of Aquitane. See, for example, Expositio psalmo-rum 115.19 ( 68 79.61-62): Ierusalem uero interpretatur: uisio pacis.

This etymology is found 4 times in Caesarius of Arles. See, for example, Sermones Caesariiuel ex aliis fontibus hausti  161 ( 104 661.9-10): Hierusalem interpretatur uisio pacis; hieri-cho uero typum mundi istius praeferebat .

This etymology is found 5 times in Cassiodorus. See, for example, Expositio psalmorum 

127.5 ( 98 1180.154): Ierusalem indicatur uisio pacis. This etymology is found twice in Isidore. See, for example, Mysticorum expositiones sac-

ramentorum seu Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum, In Esdram 3.1 ( 83 424-):Cum

autem respectu Dei, ignorantiae confusione relicta, populus ad Jerusalem, id est, uisionem pacis, quae est Ecclesia Dei uiui, duce Domino, redire festinat, haec uasa, id est, sacramenta,

se cum deferens, non immutat, sed reportat utique integra; nec confringit, quasi in melius

renouanda; sed ea templo restituit, usibus que diuinis accommodat .

This etymology is found 13 times in Bede. See, for example, De Templo, Book 1 ( 119160.512-513): Et Iebus quidem interpretatur conculcata, Hierusalem autem uisio pacis.

This etymology is found 8 times in Gregory the Great. See, for example,  Moralia in Iob 35.16.40 ( 143 1800.97):  Ierusalem quippe uisio pacis dicitur .

This etymology is found 4 times in Bernard. See, for example, Sermones in uigilia natiuita-

tis Domini  2.1 ( 480 214.29-31): Est enim Ierusalem uisio pacis: uisio, non possessio, cuiusnes Dominus posuit pacem [Ps 147.12,14], non initium sane, nec medium. This etymology is found 4 times in Peter Lombard. See, for example, Commentarium in

 Psalmum 147.1 ( 191 1279): Jerusalem enim interpretatur  uisio pacis,Sion speculatio,uelcontemplatio et uisio pacis est: contemplatio Christi, qui est pax nostra.

This etymology is found 5 times in Bonaventure. See, for example, Sermones domini-cales  2.9 (in J.-G. Bougerol [ed.]Sermones dominicales  [Grottaferrata Rome: Collegio S.Bonaventura, Padri Editori di Quaracchi, 1977] 145.176-177):  Per  faciemnotitia dei intel-

ligitur sed  Ierusalemuisio pacis interpretatur .

This etymology is found 5 times in Aquinas. See, for example, Super Ad Galatas reportatio 4.8.264 (in P. Raphaelis [ed.] Super Epistolas S. Pauli Lectura, vol. 1 [Roma: Marietti, 1953]622): Sed est etiam pacica, quia Ierusalem, id est, uisio pacis.

This etymology is found twice in Eriugena. See, for example, Commentarius in Euangelium Iohannis 1.30 ( 166 66.26-27): Hierusalem quippe ‘uisio pacis’ interpretatur .

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

12/117

 

  ( ) -

the etymology of “vision of peace” for Jerusalem with the etymology of “specu-latio” for Zion in the same passage. This combination is found in Augustinebut not in Jerome, who ofers a diferent etymology for Zion. Likewise,

Cassiodorus, Caesarius of Arles, Bede, Gregory the Great, and Bernard ofClarivaux use “vision of peace” as the etymology for Jerusalem with “confusio”as the etymology for Babylon. Again this combination is found in Augustinebut not in Jerome. Finally, in the tradition of Commentaries on the Psalms,both Prosper of Aquitane and Cassiodorus ofer the etymology of “vision ofpeace” for Jerusalem in Psalm verses where Augustine ofered that etymologybut Jerome did not.

The introduction into the West of the Greek etymology “vision of peace”

spelled the end of the Latin etymology “city of peace.” The authority andpower of “vision of peace” after the fth century can be attributed directlyto the authority wielded by the writings of Jerome and, to a greater extent,

 Augustine, who overshadowed the authority of earlier gures such as Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, and Hilary.

  Hilary’s Eschatology of Existence in Christ Supported by the

Etymology “City Of Peace”

I intend to use Hilary and Augustine as representatives of the way the two dif-ferent etymologies—“city of peace” and “vision of peace”—are connected todiferent eschatological systems. While Hilary’s eschatology centers on thecity—namely human participation in the city of Christ’s body, which itselfforms part of the larger city of the heavenly Jerusalem—Augustine’s eschatol-ogy centers on the beatitude of the vision, and so knowledge, of God. Augustine’spreference for the etymology of “vision of peace” has a double impact on the

Jerome uses specula orspeculator  as the etymology for Zion. Jerome does ofer the etymology of confusio  for Babylon. However, the only time that

 Jerome ofers etymologies for both Jerusalem and Babylon in the same passage, he denesBabylon as confusio huius mundi : an expansion of the etymology that is not followed bylater writers. See Jerome, In Michaeam 2.7 ( 76 516.437-442):Videtur mihi omnis anima Hierusalem, in qua aedicatum fuit templum domini, et uisio pacis, et notitia scripturarum,

et postea superata a peccatis, ducta est in captiuitatem, tormentis que tradita, dicere con-

tra Babylonem, id est confusionem huius mundi, et aduersus contrariam fortitudinem, quaehuic mundo praesidet . For example, Prosper of Aquitane in  Expositio Psalmorum  124.5 ( 68 134.45) and

134.21 ( 68 157.198); Cassiodorus Expositio Psalmorum 64.2 ( 97 562.51), 127.5 (98 1180.154), 136.1 ( 98 1231.31), and 147.12 ( 98 1310.23).

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

13/117

   ’  

  ( ) -

later tradition: in terms of etymology, “vision of peace” becomes the exclu-sive etymology for Jerusalem; in terms of theology, Augustine’s eschatologicalemphasis on vision denitively shapes post-fourth-century eschatology.

Hilary has a soteriology, and a corresponding vision of the eschatologicallife, in which humans exist individually and physically in the body of Christ.Hilary’s rst mention of this human presence in Christ’s body (found in hisearliest work the In Matthaeum), is in connection with the theme of city. Hilarysays of Christ:

He calls the esh that he had assumed a city because, as a city consistsof a variety and multitude of inhabitants, so there is contained in him,

through the nature of the assumed body, a certain assembly of the wholehuman race. And thus he becomes a city from our assembly in him and we become the dwelling of this city through consort with his esh.

Christ’s body is able to contain all humanity because it is a city. The image ofthe city allows all of humanity to exist in Christ’s body individually while main-taining a corporate identity.

Furthermore, in an eschatological context, Christ’s body continues to reectthe physical nature of human salvation, while the image of the city serves as acentral image to convey both the individuality of resurrected humans and thecorporate identity of the communion of saints.  Many can live together inone city. Hilary believes that salvation consists of an eternal existence in the bodyof Christ, which functions as a city “housing” all the saints.

Hilary makes an important distinction between Zion and Jerusalem thatis based both on their etymologies and their historical function. Hilary uses

Hilary,  In Matthaeum 4.12 ( 254 130.3-9):Ciuitatem carnem quam adsumpserat nuncu- pat, quia, ut ciuitas ex uarietate ac multitudine consistit habitantium, ita in eo per naturamsuscepti corporis quaedam uniuersi generis humani congregatio continetur. Atque ita et ille

ex nostra in se congregatione t ciuitas et nos per consortium carnis suae sumus ciuitatis

habitatio. Page and line number follow J. Doignon (ed.) Sur Matthieu, 2 vols., 254 (ch.1-13) and 258 (ch. 14-33), (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1978-1979).

While Hilary says in  De Trinitate  9.8 that humans will exist eschatologically in thebody of Christ only until the resurrection of their own bodies, by the writing of hisTractatus super Psalmos he has altered his position to teach that the presence of humans

in Christ’s body is not temporary but rather eternal. For a treatment of this issue, seeE. Scully, “Jerusalem: Image of Hilary’s Christocentric Eschatology in the Tractatus super

 Psalmos,” Vigiliae Christianae 66 (2012) 269-282 at 278-280. For a detailed treatment of the distinction between Jerusalem and Zion in Hilary’s

thought, see Scully, “Jerusalem: Image of Hilary’s Christocentric Eschatology,” 269-282.

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

14/117

 

  ( ) -

the etymology of Zion to undergird his understanding of its position as theheavenly temple of Christ’s body in the midst of the heavenly Jerusalem.Etymologically Zion is speculatio, that is, a lookout. Hilary argues that humans

in this life can look at (speculari ) their eschatological future in Mt. Zion, thebody of Christ. In other words, Zion shows believers their future existence.Hilary says:

For although Zion is the little hill associated with the temple that was in Jerusalem, nevertheless it is called “lookout” according to the meaning

of the word from Hebrew into Latin and Greek. Therefore we look at ourhope and our life in this body of the Lord, in which he was resurrected

from the dead, in which he sits at the right hand of power, and in whichhe is in the glory of God the Father.

 When humans “look at” or “see” their future, they see their own lives continu-ing eternally “in this body of the Lord.” The body of Christ is therefore the“hope” of believers because Christ’s assumption and resurrection of his bodyprovides the means and the physical context for salvation.

 As can be seen in the above quotation, Hilary is aware that Mt. Zion func-tioned as the temple of the historical city Jerusalem, and he believes that itcontinues to function as the temple/Church in the heavenly Jerusalem. Hilarysays: “Mt. Zion indeed is near Jerusalem; but we have always accepted that thismountain and its name mean this city’s Church, which is Christ’s body.” Thetemple of the heavenly Jerusalem is nothing other than the Church of Christ’sbody. The historical Jerusalem extended beyond the boundaries of its temple,and so too does the heavenly Jerusalem. Mt. Zion provides the center or foun-dation of the entire city of Jerusalem:

But his mountain is that body which he assumed from humanity, in which he now dwells, which is sublime and lofty and above every princi-

pal and power and every name. On this mountain that city that cannot be

Hilary, Tractatus super Psalmos 68.31 ( 61 316.7-12):Sion enim, licet colliculus templo,quod in Hierusalem fuit, iunctus sit, tamen secundum interpretationem ex hebraeo in lati-

num graecumque sermonem speculatio dicitur. In hoc ergo corpore Domini, quo resurrexit

ex mortuis, quo a dextris uirtutis consedit, quo in gloria Dei patris est, spem nostram uita-mque speculamur . Hilary, Tractatus super Psalmos 64.2 ( 61 221.12-14):Sion mons quidem Hierusalem adia-

cens est; sed montem hunc eius que nomen atque etiam urbis ipsius ecclesiam, quae corpus

est Christi, nuncupatam semper accepimus. . . .

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

15/117

   ’  

  ( ) -

hidden is built, because, as the apostle said “there is no other foundationthan Christ.” Therefore because those who are of Christ were elected inChrist’s body before the foundation of the world, the Church is the body

of Christ and the foundation of our house is Christ and the city is builton the mountain, the mountain which is he himself, in whom is soughtanyone who has attained to rest.

Mt. Zion is the body of Christ that contains the human elect, but it is only onepart—the foundation—of Jerusalem.

Historically Zion is the temple of Jerusalem; etymologically Zion is the“lookout” in which humans see their eschatological future; and theologically

Zion is the foundation of the heavenly Jerusalem. These three ideas—temple,lookout, and foundation—are deeply interconnected. Zion serves as the foun-dation of Jerusalem precisely because it is the temple, or spiritual foundation,of the city. The eschatological temple is equivalent to the Church, which isitself equivalent to the body of Christ. Therefore, humans “lookout” and seetheir future in Zion because the eschatological future of believers is in Christand in his Church.

The heavenly city of Jerusalem, built on the foundation of Mt. Zion, con-tains not just the humans in Christ’s body, but also the angels.

For we are built, according to blessed Paul, upon the foundation of theprophets and apostles, in whom the testimony of God was founded ineternity, where that heavenly and royal holy city Jerusalem is built, whichis the house of the crowd of angels and the rst elect, whose foundationsare the precious living stones and jewels of those living, rising, and reign-ing in Christ, who is blessed from age to age.

Hilary, Tractatus super Psalmos 14.5 ( 61 84.10-19): Mons autem eius est illud quod exhomine corpus adsumpsit, in quo nunc habitat et sublimis et excelsus super omnem princi-

 patum et potestatem et omne nomen. Super hunc montem aedicata est ciuitas, quae non

 possit abscondi, quia, sicut ait apostolus, non est aliud fundamentum nisi Christus [1 Cor3:11].  Ergo quia qui Christi sunt in Christi corpore ante constitutionem mundi electi suntet ecclesia corpus est Christi et fundamentum aedicationis nostrae Christus est et ciuitas

super montem aedicata, hic ille mons est, in quo quaeritur  quis possit  esse requiescens. Hilary, Tractatus super Psalmos  118 Joph 12 ( 61 185.22-186.28): Aedicamur enim

secundum beatum Paulum super fundamentum prophetarum et apostolorum [Eph 2:20],in quibus testimonia Dei fundata sunt in aeternum, ubi exstruetur caelestis illa et regia ciui-

tas sancta Hierusalem, quae domus angelorum frequentantium et electorum primitiuorum

est, cuius fundamenta sunt uiui lapides pretiosae que gemmae in Christo uiuentes, resurgen-

tes, regnantes, qui est benedictus in saecula saeculorum.

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

16/117

 

  ( ) -

 While Hilary is clear that humans will dwell in the Mt. Zion of Christ’s body, henever speaks of the presence of angels in Mt. Zion. In other words, Jerusalemcontains humans and angels but Mt. Zion, as Christ’s incarnate body, only con-

tains those whom the incarnation saves, namely humans. Humans continueto exist physically in Christ’s body, but Christ’s body is itself only a part of thecity of Jerusalem.

 While Christ’s body is a city, as we saw Hilary say earlier in the In Matthaeum, Jerusalem is the paradigmatic city, fullling its etymology of “city of peace,”

by being the city of all those who glorify God: both those who needed salva-tion, namely humans, and those who did not, namely angels. When a humanenters into the heavenly Jerusalem he enters into a gathering that is wider than

humanity.

The prophet  puts forth Jerusalem as the beginning of his joy . . . becausehaving been received in Jerusalem he will be immortal after having beenmortal; he will be mixed in with the gathering of the companies of theangels, he will be received into the reign of the Lord to whose glory he

 will be conformed.

 Jerusalem, then, is the city that contains both the gathering of all redeemedhumanity in the body of Christ, namely Mt. Zion, and also the ranks of theangels.

Hilary’s etymology of Jerusalem, in particular the notion of the city, sup-ports his vision of eschatological life. Eschatological life is the entrance into acity of relationships. The relationship of humans to God is that of dwellers inhis city but also, more intimately, incorporation into the body of Christ and thegathering of the angels. Hilary says:

For Jerusalem is the city of peace, and, since the reign of our God is in thepeace and unanimity of the saints . . . that gathering of the blessed, whichis the reign of God, is said to be Jerusalem, the city of peace, so to speak.

Hilary, Tractatus super Psalmos 136.11 ( 61 178.17-179.22):Sed propheta Hierusalem sibiinitium laetitiae praeponit . . . quod in Hierusalem receptus immortalis ex mortali erit, quod

angelorum frequentium coetu admiscebitur, quod in regno domini recipietur, quod confor-mis gloriae ipsius et . Hilary, Tractatus super Psalmos 147.2 ( 61 292.4-8): Hierusalem enim est ciuitas pacis,

et, quia Domini nostri regnum in pace et unanimitate sanctorum est . . . conuentus ille beato-

rum, qui Dei regnum est, Hierusalem tamquam ciuitas pacis est dictus.

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

17/117

   ’  

  ( ) -

 Jerusalem is the “city of peace” because the peace of Jerusalem is the peaceproper to a city: it is the unanimity of many living together as one.

  Augustine’s Shift from “City of Peace” to “Vision of Peace”

 Augustine begins his writing career with Hilary’s etymology of “city of peace”—in which, however, he shows little interest, using it but a handful of times—but switches over by 394/5 to the Greek etymology of “vision of peace.”

 Augustine rst uses “city of peace” as the etymology for Jerusalem in his expla-nation of the parable of the Good Samaritan in  De Genesi contra Manichaeos.

“For although Jerusalem is,” he says, “a visible and earthly place, nevertheless,spiritually it signies the city of peace.” Augustine goes on to explain that theman who descends from Jerusalem to Jericho, according to the gospel account,spiritually signies the fall from paradise into sin. Six years later, around the

 year 400, Augustine returns to this etymology for the second and nal time when he again explains the parable of the good Samaritan in his Quaestiones Euangeliorum. Augustine interprets the gospel verse “a certain man descendedfrom Jerusalem into Jericho” in this way: “Adam himself is understood in thehuman race; Jerusalem is that heavenly city of peace from whose beatitudehe has fallen.” Augustine again interprets the man waylaid by robbers onthe road from Jerusalem to Jericho as humanity’s fall into sin and its descent

For a brief examination of Augustine’s theological use of Jerusalem, see J. van Oort,

“Hierusalem,” in C. Mayer (ed.) Augustinus-Lexikon, vol. 3, (Basel: Schwabe, 2006) 336-339. Augustine,  De Genesi contra Manichaeos  2.13 ( 91 134.14-22):sicut Hierusalem, qua-

muis sit uisibilis et terrenus locus, signicat tamen ciuitatem pacis spiritualiter et Sion,quamuis sit mons in terra, speculationem tamen signicat, et hoc nomen in scripturarum

allegoriis ad spiritualia intelligenda saepe transfertur: et ille qui descendebat ab Hierusalem

in Hiericho, sicut dominus dicit, et in uia uulneratus, saucius et semiuiuus relictus est a

latronibus, utique locos istos terrarum, quamuis secundum historiam in terra inueniantur,

spiritualiter cogit intelligi . Though Augustine’s interpretation of Jerusalem as a metaphorfor the protological state of original innocence in the parable of the Good Samaritan fol-lows a trajectory that can be traced back through Ambrose to Origen, Augustine is therst to introduce the etymology of Jerusalem (as “city of peace”) into the discussion. See

Origen, In Euangelium Lucam 34 (according to the translation of Jerome, 26 316-317); Ambrose, Expositio Euangelii secundum Lucam 7.73 ( 14 238.735-739). Augustine, Quaestiones Euangeliorum 2.19 ( 44 62.2-4): Homo quidam descendebat

ab Hierusalem in Hiericho, ipse Adam intellegitur in genere humano; Hierusalem ciuitas pacis illa caelestis, a cuius beatitudine lapsus est .

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

18/117

 

  ( ) -

from the original heavenly beatitude. In both instances, Augustine uses theetymology of “city of peace” for Jerusalem when he seeks to portray the city notas humanity’s eschatological end but as its protological beginning.

By the 390s, Augustine knows both etymologies for Jerusalem, and considersboth valid—as demonstrated by this use of “city of peace” in his Quaestiones Euangeliorum  even after he has accepted “vision of peace” as his usual ety-mology. However, while Augustine sees “city of peace” as having protologicaluse, he deems “vision of peace” the etymology worthy of eschatological usebecause, as we shall see, it is the etymology that matches his already vision-centered eschatology.

  Theological Reasons behind Augustine’s Etymological Shift

 Augustine’s use of both “city of peace” and “vision of peace” as etymologies for Jerusalem demonstrates that he has come into contact with sources for both

these etymologies. How or why, then, does Augustine choose “vision of peace”as his etymology of choice? In this section I will ofer three reasons for his pref-erence of “vision of peace” over “city of peace.” First, before he ever came intocontact with the etymology of “vision of peace,” Augustine made a connectionbetween three concepts—beatitude, seeing, and knowing—that would denethe fundamental structure of his eschatology for his entire career. The etymol-ogy of “vision of peace” t better into his overarching eschatological visionthan did “city of peace.” Second, within his theme of the two cities, Augustineidenties both Jerusalem and Zion as names for the City of God, against theearthly city named as Babylon. Augustine most frequently ofers Zion’s etymol-ogy as speculatio, but sometimes as contemplatio. Therefore Zion’s etymologyprovides Augustine further support for the connection between seeing, know-

ing, and beatitude that leads him to prefer the vision-centric framework of theetymology “vision of peace” for Jerusalem. Third, since Augustine’s theologicaluse of Jerusalem is within his framework of the two cities, Augustine believesthat the “city-ness” of Jerusalem is not lost with his preference of the etymol-ogy “vision of peace.”

  The Connection between Beatitude, Seeing, and Knowing

 Augustine’s earliest writings, before he encountered the etymology of “vision

of peace,” manifest a connection between three concepts: beatitude, seeing,and knowing. For Augustine, not only in these early writings, but through-out his whole career, seeing God is knowing God and knowing God is the

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

19/117

   ’  

  ( ) -

enjoyment of beatitude. The early inuences of Neo-Platonism are revealedin Augustine’s life-long conception of beatitude as the result of an ascent ofthe mind. As one example among many, I will show Augustine’s connection

between beatitude, seeing, and knowing, in his Soliloquies written in 386 or 87. Augustine says:

The mind’s act of looking is reason. But because it does not follow thateveryone who looks sees, a right and perfect act of looking, that is, one

 which is followed by vision, is called virtue; for virtue is either right orperfect reason. . . . Now the act of looking is followed by the very visionof God, which is the end of looking; not because looking ceases, but

because it has nothing further to which it can turn itself. And this is thetruly perfect virtue, virtue arriving at its end, which is followed by the lifeof blessedness.

In this passage, Augustine uses the language of sight to describe the actionof the mind: seeing is equivalent to understanding. The goal of the mind isto attain the “life of blessedness.” The mind attains to this life of blessednessthrough a two-step process. First the mind “looks.” A perfect act of “looking”leads to the second step, which is “the very vision (uisio) of God.” This vision ofGod is the point of all “looking” and is, itself, the “life of blessedness.”

Since Augustine had already dened beatitude as “vision of God,” when hecomes into contact with the etymology of “vision of peace” for Jerusalem, he isable to integrate Jerusalem and this etymology into his eschatological systemand so provide a biblical context for the centrality of vision.

B. Daley, The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology  (Peabody,

: Hendrickson, 2003) 145: “In many passages throughout his works, in fact, Augustinestresses the direct contemplative vision of God as the very heart of the eternal beatitudeof the saints.”

Augustine, Soliloquiorum libri duo 1.6.13 ( 89 21.10-13, 18-22): Aspectus animae, ratio

est. Sed quia non sequitur ut omnis qui aspicit uideat, aspectus rectus atque perfectus, id

est quem uisio sequitur, uirtus uocatur; est enim uirtus uel recta uel perfecta ratio. . . . Iam

aspectum sequitur ipsa uisio dei, qui est nis aspectus; non quod iam non sit, sed quod nihil

amplius habeat quo se intendat. Et haec est uere perfecta uirtus, ratio perueniens ad nem

suum, quam beata uita consequitur . He claried this a few lines earlier when he said that without faith, hope, and love “no

mind is healed so that it can see, that is, understand its God” (Augustine, Soliloquiorum

libri duo 1.6.12 [ 89 21.6-7]:Sine tribus istis igitur anima nulla sanatur, ut possit deumsuum uidere, id est intelligere).

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

20/117

 

  ( ) -

 Augustine’s rst use of “vision of peace” is, as we have said, in his Commentaryon Psalm 9, which was composed by 394/5. In response to the Psalm verse“Sing to the Lord, who dwells in Zion,” Augustine explains:

This invitation is addressed to those whom the Lord does not abandonas they seek him. He himself lives in Zion, which means “watching,” andbears the image of the Church which now is, as Jerusalem bears the imageof the Church which is yet to be, that is, of the city of the saints whoenjoy the angelic life. This is because Jerusalem means “vision of peace”.

 Watching goes before seeing, as this Church precedes that other Church which is promised, the immortal and eternal city. But it has precedence

in time, not in dignity, because the goal we are straining to reach is ofmore value than what we do to merit reaching it. We put all our efortsinto watching, in order to see.

In this passage, Augustine distinguishes between Zion and Jerusalem: Zionis the Church which now is, while Jerusalem is the Church that is yet to be.

 While Zion is of the present, Jerusalem is of the future. Augustine makes thisdistinction based on the etymologies of the two names: while Zion is spec-ulatio, or “watching,” Jerusalem is “vision of peace.” Augustine declares thatthere is a temporal order implied by these two etymologies: “watching” pre-cedes “vision.” Furthermore, Augustine here declares vision to be the goal that“we are straining to reach,” and it is vision that enables the saints to live theangelic life.

The idea of an intellectual ascent to beatitude, framed in the language of vision, is consistent between this passage and the passage written six years

earlier in the Soliloquies. The technical vocabulary difers between the twosince Augustine now uses biblical language, and especially the etymologies

of Zion and Jerusalem, to replace the philosophical terminology for the two-step process of mental vision. In the Soliloquies, looking (aspectus) precedes

 vision; here watching (speculatio: the etymology for Zion) precedes vision

Augustine, Enarratio in Psalmum 9.12 ( 38 64.1-12; Boulding 147): Psallite domino, quihabitat in Sion; his dicitur, quos non derelinquit quaerentes se Dominus. Ipse habitat in Sion,quod interpretatur speculatio, et gestat imaginem ecclesiae quae nunc est; sicut Ierusalem

 gestat imaginem ecclesiae quae futura est, id est ciuitatis sanctorum iam angelica uita fru-

entium, quia Ierusalem interpretatur uisio pacis. Praecedit autem speculatio uisionem, sicutista ecclesia praecedit eam quae promittitur, ciuitatem immortalem et aeternam. Sed prae-

cedit tempore, non dignitate, quia honorabilius est quo peruenire nitimur, quam id quod agi-

mus, ut peruenire mereamur; agimus autem speculationem, ut perueniamus ad uisionem.English translation taken from M. Boulding (trans.) St. Augustine: Exposition of the Psalms 1-32 (Hyde Park, : New City Press, 2000).

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

21/117

   ’  

  ( ) -

(now the etymology for Jerusalem). In both passages, vision of God is the goalof all looking since vision is connected to beatitude: whereas before beatitude

 was dened as “the life of blessedness,” here beatitude is the angelic life in the

heavenly Jerusalem.The similarity of thought manifested between the Soliloquies, written before Augustine’s discovery of the etymology “vision of peace,” and his Commentary

on Psalm 9 show that Augustine’s vision-centered eschatological frame- work preceded his knowledge of a vision-centered etymology for Jerusalem. Augustine’s eschatology, already centered on sight, led him to prefer the Greek

etymology of “vision of peace” to the Latin etymology of “city of peace” as soonas he discovered it.

 Augustine’s conception that eschatological beatitude is the result of anascent of the mind to the point where it can see, that is understand, God, isinuenced by Neo-Platonism. The etymology of “vision of God,” used rstby Philo and then taken up by Origen, also arises within a Platonic milieu.

 Augustine’s preference for the etymology “vision of peace” over “city of peace”is at least partially explained by the Platonic philosophical heritage that

 Augustine shares with “vision of peace.” This shared heritage allows “vision ofpeace” to better integrate with and support Augustine’s eschatology.

  The Two Cities and the Etymological Inluence of Zion upon

 Augustine’s Conception of Jerusalem

 Augustine’s theme of the two cities has been well-studied, not least in Johannes van Oort’s 1991 monograph. As early as 395, Augustine mentions the theme

of the two opposed cities—Jerusalem and Babylon—and by  De catechizandis

It is possible that Hilary, like Augustine, while already knowing the etymology “city of

peace” came into contact with the Greek etymology “vision of peace” either through hiscontact with Origen’s commentaries on the Psalms or those of Eusebius of Caesarea.However, Hilary never uses the etymology of “vision of peace.” Unlike that of Augustine,Hilary’s theology was not inuenced early-on by Platonism, and so his eschatological sys-

tem was not well-suited to accept the Greek etymology. J. van Oort,  Jerusalem and Babylon: A Study into Augustine’s City of Godand the Sources

of his Doctrine of the Two Cities (Leiden: Brill, 1991). See also A. Lauras and H. Rondet,“Le thème des deux cités dans l’oeuvre de saint Augustin,” in  Études Augustinienes (Paris,1953) 99-160. For a chronological treatment of the development of Augustine’s theme of

the two cities, see A. Lauras, “Deux cites, Jérusalem et Babylone: Formation et évolutiond’un thème central du ‘De Civitate Dei’,” in  La Ciudad de Dios: Revista Augustiniana de

cultura e investigación, Tome 1, vol. 167 (Madrid: Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo de elEscorial, 1954) 117-150.

In Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 148.4 ( 40 2168-2169) and 145.20 ( 40 2120-2121). See van Oort, Jerusalem and Babylon, 118.

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

22/117

 

  ( ) -

rudibus, written between 399 and 405, he has fully developed the theme of thetwo cities. Augustine frames his understanding of the two actually existingsocieties, namely that of the angels and believers and that of the fallen angels

and unbelievers, with the language of two cities because he believes that theScriptures themselves already do so.The two cities of Augustine’s theology are not nameless but rather are

named, in accordance with the precedent of both Scripture and tradition, Jerusalem and Babylon. While Paul’s allegory in Galatians 4:21-31 sets the

precedent for opposing the free heavenly Jerusalem with an enslaved earthlycity, Augustine names this earthly city “Babylon” based on the historical eventof the Babylonian captivity. This antithesis between Jerusalem and Babylon

is a theme that also appears in Augustine’s predecessors Origen, Ambrose, and Jerome.In Augustine’s rst extensive use of the theme of the two opposing cities,

in  De catechizandis rudibus, not only does he name the cities Jerusalem andBabylon, but he ofers the etymologies of both these names as further proof orexplanation of their mutual opposition. The future peace of the free, heavenly,city Jerusalem is manifested in Jerusalem’s etymology of “vision of peace,”

See van Oort,  Jerusalem and Babylon, 115. Also see the relevant entries in the  Augustinus- Lexikon (C. Mayer [ed.] [Basel/Stuttgart: Schwabe, 1986-]. For Augustine’s use of Babylon(almost always in opposition to Jerusalem) to signify evil, see E. Lamirande, “Babylon,”

 vol. 1, 566-569. As in Augustine, De ciuitate dei  14.1 ( 47 414.17-18):quas ciuitates duas secundum scrip-

turas nostras merito appellare possemus. See also van Oort,  Jerusalem and Babylon, 117. See van Oort,  Jerusalem and Babylon, 118: “And above all [Augustine] nds in Scripture

that these antithetical cities can be designated by the ‘mystical’ names of Jerusalem and

Babylon.” Also, “Apparently the names of these two cities and the antithesis between

them are a characteristic and essential element of his theology” (van Oort, 120). For the Babylonian captivity as the historical event giving the earthly city the nameBabylon, see Augustine De catechizandis rudibus 37-38 ( 46 161-163).

Origen, Ambrose, and Jerome are the most frequently mentioned fathers with a theologyof the two opposing cities. However, Hilary should also be mentioned on this list: seeHilary, Tractatus super Psalmos 136.5 ( 61 174.1-8):Sed quia Sion illa aeternae beatitu-

dinis sedis est, et mater caelestis nobis Hierusalem est, frequentium angelorum et primitiuo-

rum in caelis conscriptorum ciuitas sancta, et illa Babylon ciuitas confusionis et inrationabili

motu turbulenta, quae, ut Genesis docet, a confusarum linguarum hominibus nuncupata

 Babylon est .  Van Oort stresses that while the antithesis is macrocosmic and eschatological in Augustine, in his predecessors the antithesis is microcosmic and a-historical (van Oort, Jerusalem and Babylon, 120-121, 279-284).

Augustine De catechizandis rudibus 36 ( 46 160.57).

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

23/117

   ’  

  ( ) -

 while the wicked bondage of the earthly city is summarized in Babylon’s ety-mology of “confusion.” As Augustine develops the theme of the two cities in De ciuitate Dei  and Enarrationes in Psalmos, he relies more and more heavily on

the etymologies of Jerusalem and Babylon.However, within this theme of the two cities—the city of God and theearthly city—there are actually three very important cities that serve both asScriptural prompts and interpretative keys. These three cities are Jerusalem,Zion, and Babylon. Zion, like Jerusalem, is opposed to Babylon, and Zion, like

 Jerusalem, is named as the City of God. In his Commentary on Psalm 9 (which we looked at earlier) and again on Psalm 134, Augustine ofers a distinction

between Jerusalem and Zion: while Zion is the Church on earth, Jerusalem is

the eternal city of God. However, this distinction between Jerusalem andZion seems to be limited to these two passages. In most texts, Augustine uses Jerusalem and Zion as equivalent terms naming the City of God.

 When Augustine uses Jerusalem and Zion as equivalent concepts—andeven when he distinguishes between the two based on their representationsof the eschatological or present Church, respectively—his close theologicallinkage between Jerusalem and Zion demands that the etymologies for thesetwo names must also be coordinating if not equivalent. Augustine ofers theetymology of speculatio for Zion. However, occasionally he ofers, in additionto or as a replacement for speculatio, the etymology of contemplatio. This

Augustine De catechizandis rudibus 37 ( 46 161.6). For Jerusalem as uisio pacis see, for example, Augustine, De ciuitate dei  19.11 ( 48 675.11-

12); Enarrationes in Psalmos 9.12 ( 38 64.6), 50.22 ( 38 615.6-7), 61.7 ( 39 778.29-30), 64.2 ( 39 823.2-3), 64.3, ( 39 825.3-4), 124.10 ( 40 1843.25), 127.16 ( 40

1880.53-54), 134.26 ( 40 1956.4), 136.1 ( 40 1964.11), 138.29 ( 40 2011.20), 147.8( 40 2144.3), and 147.15 ( 40 2150.18). For Babylon as confusio  see, for example,

 Augustine, De ciuitate dei  16.4 ( 48 504.21-22), 16.10 ( 48 511.5), 16.11 ( 48 513.6-7), 16.17 ( 48 522.27-28), 17.16 ( 48581.62), 18.41 ( 48 637.70);  Enarrationes in Psalmos  54.12 ( 39 665.4-5), 64.2 ( 39 823.2), 125.3 ( 40 1847.18-19), and 136.1( 40 1964.10-12).

See Augustine,  Enarrationes in Psalmos 9.12 ( 38 64) and 134.26 ( 40 1956-1957).

See van Oort,  Jerusalem and Babylon, 121-122; Lauras and Rondet, “La thème des deuxcités,” 118 no. 48.

For Augustine’s use of the etymology speculatio for Zion, see De Genesi contra Manichaeos 2.13 ( 91 134.16); Enarrationes in Psalmos 2.5 ( 38 5.4-5), 9.12 ( 38 64.3), 50.22

( 38 615.6-7), 64.3 ( 39 825.4), 75.5 ( 39 1041.41), 77.41 ( 39 1094.32), 98.4( 39 1381.17-18), 101.2.4 ( 40 1440.8-9), 134.26 ( 40 1956.3), 147.8 ( 40 2144.3-2145.4); De ciuitate dei  17.16 ( 48 581.58-60).

For Augustine’s use of the etymology contemplatio for Zion, see Enarrationes in Psalmos 64.3 ( 39 825.4), 75.5 ( 39 1040.29-30), and 98.4 ( 39 1381.17-18).

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

24/117

 

  ( ) -

double etymology for Zion is related to Augustine’s theological equivalencyof seeing and knowing, which we looked at in the previous section. Augustineexplains, “just as Jerusalem is interpreted as ‘vision of peace,’ so also is Zion

‘watching’ (speculatio), that is ‘vision and contemplation.’ ” Zion is “watch-ing,” just as Jerusalem is “vision,” in the sense of knowing or contemplatingGod. Since the objective content of beatitude is a loving contemplation of God,

 Augustine deems the etymologies of these two cities as true names of the Cityof God.

The coordination between the etymologies of Zion and Jerusalem centersupon the aspect of sight and its association with the beatitude of knowingGod. While the etymology of “vision of peace” for Jerusalem corresponds with

the visual aspect of Zion’s etymology of “watching,” the etymology of “city ofpeace” does not. Therefore, Augustine preferences the etymology of “vision ofpeace” not only because he sees eschatological connotations that are not pres-ent in “city of peace” but also because “vision of peace” corresponds better withthe etymology of Zion. A correspondence of the two etymologies is necessarysince Augustine treats the two names—Jerusalem and Zion—as equivalent innaming the City of God and therefore as identically opposed to the earthly cityof Babylon.

  “Vision of Peace” Expands the Meaning of Jerusalem while

 Maintaining Some of the Connotations of “City of Peace” 

 Augustine’s use of Jerusalem and its etymology of “vision of peace” withinthe framework of the theme of the two opposing cities, the City of God andthe earthly city, shows that even without the etymology of “city of peace”

 Jerusalem maintains the importance of its function as a city. As a city, perhapsbest understood according to the Greek conception of a city-state, Jerusalem isa gathering of individuals bonded together by their fellowship in Christ.

 Jerusalem, as the City of God, is also the Church. For example, Augustinesays “we have known another mother, the heavenly Jerusalem, which is theholy Church;” or again, “Jerusalem bears the image of the Church that shall

Augustine,  Enarrationes in Psalmos  64.3 ( 39 825.3-4):Sicut Ierusalem interpretaturVisio pacis, ita Sion Speculatio, id est uisio et contemplatio.

Augustine twice, in De ciuitate dei , ofers a denition of ciuitas: in 1.15 ( 47 17.48), it is

concurs hominum multitudo; in 15.8 ( 48 464.66-67), it is hominum multitudo aliquotsocietatis uinculo conligata. Van Oort ofers a thorough treatment of Augustine’s concep-tion of the ciuitas (van Oort, Jerusalem and Babylon, 102-108).

Augustine,  Enarrationes in Psalmos  26.2.18 ( 38 164.26-165.27): cognouimus aliammatrem, Ierusalem caelestem, quae est sancta ecclesia . . .

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

25/117

   ’  

  ( ) -

be, that is of the city of the saints already enjoying the angelic life, because Jerusalem is interpreted as ‘vision of peace.’ ” However, the connection

between Jerusalem, the City of God, and the Church is not exact equivalency,

though Augustine often uses the terms in this way. First, as many scholars havealready noted, both Jerusalem and the City of God are better identiers ofthe eschatological Church than the Church that now is. Such is the distinc-tion that Augustine already made between Jerusalem and Zion. Second, while

 Augustine often speaks of angels dwelling in both in the City of God and in Jerusalem, only rarely does he say that the heavenly Church contains angels.

Augustine,  Enarrationes in Psalmos 9.12 ( 38 64.4-6): . . . Ierusalem gestat imaginem

ecclesiae quae futura est, id est ciuitatis sanctorum iam angelica uita fruentium, quia Ierusalem interpretatur uisio pacis.

van Oort, Jerusalem and Babylon, 128: “The heavenly Church (ecclesia caelestis) is withoutdoubt absolutely identical with the city of God. . . . But the Church in its earthly manifes-tation is also identied by Augustine with the city of God. However, in this context, the

two are not for him entirely equivalent concepts.” See also É. Lamirande,  L’Église célesteselon saint Augustin (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1963) 94.

The distinction between the City of God and the eschatological Church has not alwaysbeen recognized. For example, in his section entitled “Les Anges et les hommes a

l’intérieur d’une meme église,” Lamirande cites many passages that never mention theChurch but speak only of the City of God ( L’Église céleste selon saint Augustin, 137-144).

  For angels in the City of God see, for example Epistula 95.8 ( 34.2 513.5-7):in illa

tamen ciuitate sanctorum, ubi etiam per christum redempti a generatione hac in aeter-

num coniungentur milibus angelorum . . . ; Quaestionum in heptateuchum libri septem,lib. 1, Quaestiones de Genesi   168 ( 33 65.2239-2243): An forte populus est non solumhominum sanctorum uerum et angelorum populus ciuitatis illius, unde dicitur ad Hebraeos:sed accessistis ad montem Sion et ad ciuitatem dei Hierusalem et ad milia angelorumexultantium [Heb 12:22]? 

  For angels in Jerusalem see, for example, Enarrationes in Psalmos 93.6 ( 39 1306.16-17): . . . in illa ciuitate Ierusalem, ubi angeli uiuunt, unde nos modo peregrinamur  . . . ; Enarrationes in Psalmos 121.1 ( 40 1801.23-24):sed uiuat in sancta societate angelorumciuium in aeterna Ierusalem.

  I have been able to nd only three instances in which Augustine speaks of the pres-ence of angels in the Church. See  Enarrationes in Psalmos 137.4 ( 40 1981.32-34):Seddescendit ad ecclesiam deorsum dominus angelorum, et ei angeli in terra ministrauerunt

ministranti nobis; Enchiridion 15.56 ( 46 79.9-17): Rectus itaque confessionis ordo posce-

bat ut trinitati subiungeretur ecclesia, tanquam habitatori domus sua et deo templum suum

et conditori ciuitas sua. Quae tota hic accipienda est, non solum ex parte qua peregrinaturin terris, a solis ortu ad occasum laudans nomen domini, et post captiuitatem uetustatis

cantans canticum nouum, uerum etiam ex illa quae in caelis semper ex quo condita est

cohaesit deo, nec ullum malum sui casus experta est. Haec in sanctis angelis beata per-

sistit  . . . ;Sermo novissimi  22D (in F. Dolbeau [ed.]Vingt-six sermons au peuple d’Afrique 

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

26/117

 

  ( ) -

Thus while the expanse of the term “Church” includes the Church on earth inpilgrimage as well as the eschatological Church of the saints, the expanse ofthe terms “City of God” and “Jerusalem” do not include the Church on earth but

do explicitly include not only the saints but also the angels. When Augustineuses these three terms in an equivalent fashion, he is referring to their area ofoverlap, namely the community of saints.

Both the multiplicity and the unity of this community of saints withChrist—as their ruler or king (within the image of the city) or as their head(within the image of the Church as the body of Christ)—is one of the founda-tional characteristics of Jerusalem that is tied to the conception of “city” morethan to that of “vision.” Here we see something resembling, but not identical to,

Hilary’s theology of Jerusalem as a city within Christ’s body. Augustine’s theol-ogy of the totus Christus, seen by Michael Cameron as the hermeneutical centerof the  Enarrationes in Psalmos, connects believers with Christ as members ofthe body of which he is the head. Nevertheless, while this one body of Christand believers may properly be referred to as the Church, Augustine, unlikeHilary, does not envision the heavenly city of Jerusalem as Christ’s body in

 which humans dwell. While for Hilary, Jerusalem is the city of Christ’s bodyin which believers dwell, for Augustine, Christ himself dwells in Jerusalem.

 Augustine says, “When our journey is ended, we shall live in that city which will never crumble into ruin, because the Lord himself lives in it and guards

it. This is the eternal Jerusalem, the vision of peace . . . and we shall be free tocontemplate God in eternal peace, for we shall be citizens of Jerusalem, thecity of God.”

Since Augustine subsumes his treatment of Jerusalem as a city to hisoverarching vision-centered eschatology, while his understanding of

 Jerusalem is similar in some points to Hilary’s, it is not identical. The strongparticipatory element of Hilary’s city-centered presentation of the eschatolog-

ical Jerusalem, such that all humans are actually existent in the body of Christ,is not reproduced in Augustine’s treatment of Jerusalem. While Augustine

[Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 1996] 571.456-460):  Et quia de illo ait etiam quod  sit caput omnis principatus et potestatis [Col 2:10], adiungitur ista ecclesia, quae nunc per-egrina est, illi caelesti ecclesiae, ubi angelos ciues habemus, quia aequales nos futuros post

resurrectionem corporum impudenter adrogaremus, nisi ueritas promisisset dicens: Eruntaequales angelis dei [Luke 20:36]; et t una ecclesia ciuitas regis magni.

M. Cameron, “ Enarrationes in Psalmos,” 292-293. Augustine,  Enarrationes in Psalmos  134.26 ( 40 1956.8-1957.16; Boulding, 212): Finitauia habitabimus in illa ciuitate, quae numquam ruitura est; quia et dominus habitat in ea, et

custodit eam: quae est uisio pacis aeterna ierusalem . . . et uacabimus ad uidendum deum in

 pace aeterna, ciues ierusalem facti ciuitatis dei .

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

27/117

   ’  

  ( ) -

maintains a sense of city in his eschatological presentation of Jerusalem suchthat it is a gathering of believers united with Christ, his addition of the ety-mological emphasis on vision does introduce a certain separation between

believers and Christ that was not present in Hilary’s theology of Jerusalem. As Augustine said above, being a citizen of Jerusalem gives one the ability to seeGod, and vision, even epistemological vision, presupposes a division or dis-tance between see-er and seen. In his article on the Trinitarian framework of

 Augustine’s vision-centered eschatology, Michel Barnes makes this very point:“It is worth noting that when speaking of this eschatological vision Augustinedoes not employ union, participation, or assimilation language in any sig-nicant way; the object of our vision—the Trinity—remains ‘out there’, not

something we are assimilated into by that vision.” However, for Hilary, therelationship of believers to Christ, as presence in Christ’s body, is more akin totouch than to sight and while sight presupposes distance, touch necessitatescloseness and intimacy.

  The Result of Augustine’s Preference for “Vision of Peace”:

Loss of the Etymology of “City of Peace” in the Later Tradition

 Augustine chose to use the Greek etymology of “vision of peace” for Jerusalembecause it corresponded to the eschatological system he already had in place.

 While “city of peace” was an etymology that had some limited protologicaluse for Augustine, “vision of peace” was perfectly suited to his conception ofbeatitude as vision and understanding of God. Furthermore, “vision of peace”is the etymology that seemed to correspond better with the etymology ofZion. Augustine considers this correspondence between the etymologies of

 Jerusalem and Zion to be necessary since he often uses these two names as

equivalents. Finally, Augustine preserves his understanding of Jerusalem as acity, namely a “multitude of people held together by some communal bond,”even when he switches from the etymology of “city of peace” to that of “visionof peace.”

However, Augustine’s choice of “vision of peace” does not maintain all of theconnotations of the city that we found in Hilary’s eschatology where humaneschatological life is envisioned as dwelling in the city of Christ’s body. Because

M. Barnes, “The Invisible Christ and Invisible Trinity: Mt. 5:8 in Augustine’s TrinitarianTheology of 400,” Modern Theology 19 (2003) 329-355 at 350 no. 24.

Augustine,  De ciuitate dei  15.8 ( 48 464.66-67): . . .ciuitas, quae nihil est aliud quamhominum multitudo aliquo societatis uinculo conligata.

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

28/117

 

  ( ) -

of Augustine’s inuence and authority, “city of peace,” as we have already seen virtually disappeared from the later tradition. Along with the elimination of

the etymology came the elimination of the distinctive eschatology we found in

Hilary. Augustine’s preference for “vision of peace” resulted in a Latin eschato-logical tradition that found itself denitively bound to a conception of beati-tude as sight. An eschatology such as Hilary’s was doomed to non-importancein this later eschatological climate.

  The Errors of Modern Scholarship Regarding the Patristic Use of

 Jerusalem Etymologies

“Vision of peace” is an etymology for Jerusalem that entered the Latin tradi-tion between the late 380s and early 390s, nearly contemporaneously in both

 Jerome and Augustine. Prior to Jerome’s publication of  Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum  (The Book of Names)—a compilation, translation,and revision of third century Greek onomastica—“vision of peace,” while acommon etymology in Greek, had never been used in Latin. The etymologyof “vision of peace” is clearly transported from the East to the West in the latefourth century.

However, there is a serious and pervasive fault in modern scholarship whereinscholars presume the presence of the etymology “vision of peace” in the Latintradition prior to its introduction via Jerome and Augustine. This scholarship,surprisingly, misreads and misquotes the primary source texts. I will mentiona few errors as a manifestation of the dominance of “vision of peace.” AntoonBastiaensen, in his 2004 article on Jerusalem in St. Augustine’s thought, mistak-enly notes that Ambrose uses the etymology of “vision of peace” and ofers acitation from Ambrose’s Epistle 18. However, neither in Epistle 18, nor in any

other part of his writing, does Ambrose use “vision of peace.” Thomas Renna,in his 2001 article “Zion and Jerusalem in the Psalms,” says both that Hilary uses“vision of peace,” which he does not, and that “vision of peace” is the “conven-tional patristic description” of Jerusalem, which it becomes only after Hilary’sdeath. In his 1999 entry “Jerusalem” in Augustine through the Ages, Frederick

 Van Fleteren, says that Augustine consistently translates Jerusalem as “visionof peace” and ofers a reference to Augustine’s De Genesi contra Manichaeos.

A. Bastiaensen, “Urbs beata Jerusalem: Saint Augustin sur Jérusalem,” in A. Hilhorst (ed.)The Apostolic Age in Patristic Thought  (Leiden: Brill, 2004) 228-242 at 239.

T. Renna, “Zion and Jerusalem in the Psalms,” in F. Van Fleteren and J. Schnaubelt (eds.) Augustine: Biblical Exegete (New York: Peter Lang, 2001) 279-298 at 281-282.

Van Fleteren, “Jerusalem,” 462.

8/19/2019 VigChr 70-1

29/117

   ’  

  ( ) -

However, in the referenced passage of  De Genesi contra Manichaeos, Augustineuses the etymology of “city of peace,” not “vision of peace.” These errors areerrors not of misinterpretation but of actually misreading the words of these

texts: where the text says ciuitas, these three scholars incorrectly declare it saysuisio.These mistakes manifest the dominance of Augustine’s inuence on the

historical tradition (such that after Augustine, “vision of peace” truly is theexclusive etymology for Jerusalem in the West) but also the dominance of

 Augustine’s inuence on the methodology of historical theology. Augustine’stheology is read backward into the preceding tradition whether that reading is

 warranted or not. In this case of the etymology for Jerusalem, this methodol-

ogy of backwards reading is not warranted and is false.

  Conclusion

This article has traced the use of etymologies for Jerusalem in the Latin patris-tic tradition. Though the etymology “vision of peace” was well-used for cen-turies in the East, prior to its introduction in the West in the late 380s or early390s, the Latin tradition had a weak etymological tradition of using “city ofpeace” as the etymology for Jerusalem. Hilary’s eschatology wherein humansdwell in the temple of the heavenly Jerusalem, namely the Mt. Zion of Christ’sbody, reects a nuanced use of the etymology “city of peace.”

 While Augustine makes use of the etymology of “city of peace” in his early works, his discovery of the etymology of “vision of peace”—through his con-

tact with its use in Origen or directly through Greek onomastica—leads himto reject “city of peace” as an etymology with eschatological use. Augustineuses “vision of peace” to provide the Scriptural foundation for a link between

 vision and beatitude that, even as early as Cassiciacum, had been central to histhought.

This linkage between vision and beatitude and its connection with the ety-mology of “vision of peace” for Jerusalem is begun with Augustine but quicklybecomes foundational to the Latin eschatological tradition. The