Monday, July 1, 2024

Wolfram Kinzig on the descensus ad inferos in the Creeds

  

descendit ad inferna

 

First a word on terminology and how the phrase is translated. The earlier sources usually offer ad inferna. Later this is often changed to ad infernos, which syntagma was then also accepted in the official Roman catechism and liturgy. Occasionally, we also find ad infernum. There is no difference in meaning between infernum and inferna. Both the singular and the plural refer to the underworld or netherworld. The translation as ‘hell’ is, by and large, erroneous, because an analysis of late-antique and early medieval explanations of the creed has made it clear that there was considerable confusion about the nature of the inferna, and not all authors equated it with hell. The inferni are the inhabitants of the inferna. Their precise identity, however, was also a matter of debate.

 

The descent to the underworld had been discussed long before it came to be included in R/T. Hilary of Poitiers already mentions it in a sequence of mortuussepultusdescendens ad infernaascendens. The first evidence for an inclusion in R/T comes from Rufinus whose creed contains descendit in inferna. His testimony is particularly interesting, because he emphasizes that the phrase is not contained in the Roman creed nor in its eastern equivalents. It is not yet mentioned either in the Collectio Eusebiana (FaFo § 266), but we find it in the Caesarius, the Bobbio Missal (Vienne, s. VII, ex.), and Pirmin. It travelled from Gual to Spain where it is found in Martin of Braga (574), in witnesses of the seventh century (an inscription in Toledo: FaFo § 331), Ildefonsus of Toledo (c. 657-667), and in later sources. Both Venantius Fortunatus (Northern Italy or Poitiers, c. 575-600) and the Antiphonary of Bangor (Bangor 680-691 or earlier) are further witnesses to the widespread popularity of the idea.

 

The reason for this addition are unknown. What the descent signified has been widely discussed in ancient and early medieval literature. There is a wide consensus in explanations of the creed that the main purpose of Christ’s descent was to overcome the devil and to release the deceased; y contrast Christ’s preaching to the spirits in 1Pet 3:19-20 is only rarely mentioned. However, details remained controversial. Most authors insist that it is Christ’s human soul that acts in the descent while his body remained in the tomb. One group of preachers argued that it was Christ’s human soul only which descended to the underworld because Christ had promised the robber that ‘today’ they would be in paradise together (Lk 23:43) which must have referred to Christ’s divine nature. Others, however, who were keen on safeguarding human salvation, which they thought presupposed Christ’s acting as God, were convinced that Christ’s divinity and his human soul had made this trip together. A few tried to tread some sort of middle path, arguing either that the soul of Christ had somehow been divinely empowered or that Christ’s divinity was ubiquitous and hence present both in heaven and in the underworld.

 

Furthermore, the precise nature of the infernum was debated. It was generally seen as a sombre place and a kind of prison guarded by the devil. An alternative designation, taken from 2Pet 2:4, is the classical Tartarus. Some authors expressly mention tortures awaiting those inmates who have committed serious crimes or sins. Yet this caused some problems as those who had died before Christ included the patriarchs and prophets who were considered righteous, raising the question as to why they were held in the infernum at all. Some Latin fathers, therefore, pondered the possibility that the righteous elect stayed in the underworld after their deaths in a place of refreshment (refrigerium) or some kind of locus amoenus, but nonetheless had to concede that they were held behind lock and key. However, these reflections were only rarely taken up by later authors. If the problem was not simply ignored, it was often said that all the dead were kept imprisoned because of original sin.

 

The identity of those who were freed from this underworld likewise constituted a problem. Did Christ release only (part or all of) those who had died before his coming or did his action during his descent also include (all or some) humans who would die in the future? Opinions were divided on this issue. Moreover, there was disagreement as to whether or not the infernum was completely emptied by Christ (which might suggest the salvation of everyone smacking of Origenism). Later authors usually included the patriarchs, the prophets, the saints, and sometimes also Adam as those released. By contrast, infideles and serious criminals were among those who were left behind. Finally, in the eyes of many later authors the liberation from the underworld became identical with the final resurrection. It is not easy to see how these authors reconciled the seemingly historical nature of the descensus (which had been completed at the time of Christ’s resurrection) and the eschatological resurrection of all humankind. In fact, we find no detailed reflections on the problems involved in such an amalgamation. Instead the ‘historical’ account of the release of the pre-Chrisitan prisoners in the underworld at the time of Christ’s death quietly changed into a proclamation of the salvation of most or all Christians. (Wolfram Kinzig, A History of Early Christian Creeds [De Gruyter Textbook; Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2024], 169-71)