Patristic Carnival XVI- Call for Submissions

Welcome to Patristic Carnival XVI. This month, the carnival is back here at hyperekperissou this month.

The guidelines remain the same as Modest Proposal entry back in November, 2006 and my additions in August, 2007.

The last day of submission will be September 30 and the postings will be up by the week of October 5th. .

Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)


Peace,Phil

Sulpicius Severus, Life of St. Martin 22

Text:

(1)Frequently, the devil, while he was trying to deceive the saint with a thousand stratagems to harm him, used to attack him in plain view in very different appearances. Sometimes, he used to appear transformed into the appearance of Jove; many times as Mercury; often even in the appearance of Venus and Minerva. Against them, Martin, although terrified, used to protect himself with the sign of the cross and the help of prayer. (2) Many conversations were over-heard in which a crowd of demons scolded the saint with their insistent voices, but knowing that all these things were false and useless, the saint wasn't moved by their opposition. (3) Some of the brothers even bear witness that they heard a demon cursing Martin with insistent words (asking) why he had received back some of the brothers inside the monastery, who had abandoned their baptismal vows through different errors, after they had repented. He set out the crimes of each of them. (4) Martin, contending with the devil, answered back constantly that the old sins were cleansed by the conversion to a better life and that, through the mercy of the Lord, those who ceased sinning were absolved of their sins. Against the devil who said that criminals had not right to grace and that there could be no clemency from the Lord for those who lapse even once, Martin is reported to have shouted out these words: (5) "If you, miserable one, would cease from the pursuit of men and repent of your deeds either now or when the day of judgement is near, I am truly confident in the Lord Jesus Christ, (and) I would promise His mercy." O what a holy boldness in his dutifulness for the Lord, in which although he was not able to take on the authority, he showed his feelings. (6) Since this conversation about the devil and his schemes arose, it did not seem beside the point, albeit not concerning Martin directly, to report what was done because there is some portion of virtue in Martin and a worthy deed was entrusted rightly to the miracle of memory as a cautionary example, if some such thing should happen somewhere a second time.

Commentary:

In many ways, this section represents a high point of St. Martin's dealings with the devil as well as a striking section on St. Martin's attitude about repentance and conversion. This is spiritual warfare in its truest sense: St. Martin is contending directly and openly against the devil himself, after the conventional distracting deceptions. This is, of course, intended to imitate Jesus' own matching of wits against the devil after his baptism, but this contest has a rather different feeling and one that I think should be seen in the context of St. Martin's reputation for gentle remedies for sin as opposed to overly rigourous ones. The tone of grace is strong in this passage which is among the more comforting in this Life.

What I find particularly interesting in St. Martin's confrontation with the devil is that the devil's argument is exactly that of rigourist Christians from the previous centuries. We know that, as early as the Shepherd of Hermas (2nd century) that there were Christians who believed that any lapse after baptism was unforgivable. This impulse is behind the ecclesiological heresies like Novatianists and Donatists applied the logic implied in this position in the aftermath of persecutions to exclude those who did not accept martyrdom, but either sought to avoid it by flight or deceit or openly apostatized even when under torture or the threat of death. There was a long and venerable history of the kind of ethical position proposed by the devil.

What's more, we can see how such a position would be useful for the devil. If we preclude the possibility of repentance and mercy, any mistake or sin would be enough to convince the believer that they are God-forsaken, so why would one bother with returning to God and the Christian life, if you were damned anyways. There is a kind of black and white extremism implied by this position that is convenient in a world where even the saints must learn to set aside their sins and learn to imitate Jesus. If the Church is a school for sinners (an image popular among the Fathers), we are seeing an application of a zero tolerance policy towards sins whose consequences would be to empty the church, not fill it.

Yet, St. Martin's response isn't to go to the opposite extreme. Yes, he definitely defends the power of God's mercy and his grace to heal the sinner and bring him back to God. That is a necessary defence, given Scripture and the emphasis on God's grace and on his mercy which is found there. He, even, shockingly extends that grace to the devil himself, if the devil were to open himself up to it by asking for it. That is always shocking and scandalous to a world which seeks vengeance for wrongs, but it is the logic of grace in a Christian context. We often prefer to see the evil suffer and the good prosper. And we're often annoyed when the evil escape their suffering at the last second. Yet, so many of Jesus' parables and teachings emphasize that God's forgiveness is extended to all, if they ask for it.

Yet, Martin doesn't make the modern Christian error of assuming that, if God forgives everything, that we don't need to do anything else. Notice that Martin emphasizes the importance of repentance and of acknowledging that one has acted wrongly in God's eyes and turning for that wrong. For St. Martin, it is the conversion of his wayward brethren and that they ceased sinning that opens up God's mercy and saved them from God's wrath. Similarly, even for the devil, it is turning from his sins and ceasing his pursuit and perversion of humanity that opens up for him (even him!) God's mercy.

That is, of course, the rub, isn't it? Our own pride tends to rebel against admitting our wrongs, so it is often easier to believe that other people are the reason why we behave the way we do. Or that what we did wasn't really wrong. St. Martin's answer to the devil is the answer of orthodox Christianity: God's mercy and grace is for everyone, but we have to admit that we are sick before we submit ourselves to treatment and are healed. There is hope in that belief, but a hope that we have to be willing to accept before we can experience the benefits of it.

Peace,
Phil

Patristics Carnival XV- August, 2008

Welcome to Patristics Carnival XV! It has been a busy and controversial month, what with Nancy Pelosi's comments on abortion and Augustine which stired up a firestorm among patristics-literate Roman Catholics. I hope you enjoy the offerings!

New Under the Tent

Roger Pearse (of Thoughts on Antiquity fame) launched his own self-named blog this month. Look especially at the articles on scanned books on Archive.org, on the availability of the Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, especially the works of St. Cyril of Alexandria in that collection, on hunting for Christian Arabic sources, on ancient theosophies, and on a curious version of Josephus' Testimonium Flavanianum from a Christian Arabic writer. This is definately a patristic blog to watch and should be on the blogroll of anyone interested in patristics.

Front Gate: Introductions to the Fathers

No entries this month.

The Midway: Articles on the Fathers

Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers blog discusses Marcus Aurelius' persecutions and the effect it had on the Church.

Jason Engwer on Triablogue discusses Roman Catholic claims that the early Church Fathers bore little resemblance to evangelicals.

I usually don't include reposts of articles (although I make exceptions), I was sufficiently intrigued by this critique of the use of the Fathers by the Watchtower Society (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses) to justify their position against blood transfusions.

Brett Stroud on The Theology of Skittles blog discusses St. Gregory Nazianzus controversy against the Eunomians.

The budding theologian on his self-named blog reprises a philosophy paper he wrote on Heresy and Orthodoxy in part one and part two.

humblemonkey on the No Such Thing as Silence blog argues that, until the 6th century, the Christian Church held an inclusivist/universalistic view of salvation. Yes, you read that right. I took a double take as well.

Robert on the Black Cordelias blog discusses tradition, the Fathers and Scripture against a Calvinist interlocutor.

Jeff Vehige of the St. Peter Canisius Apostolate blog considers St. Greogory of Tour's account of the Assumption.

Jay Rogers on The Forerunner blog defends the argument for a 2nd century New Testament canon.

Andrea Elizabeth on her self-named Word Press blog discusses Plato and Father John Romanides’ Patristic Theology.

JB on the Gift of Self blog considers the Fathers on peace and violence.

The Principium Unitas blog discusses the Didache on the Church.

Taylor Marshall on the Canterbury Tales blog discusses Irenaeus, apostolic tradition and tradition.

Bret Saunders on the Per Caritatem blog discusses St. Augustine, the French post-modernist Jean-Luc Marion and ressourcement.

James Kelley on the Orthodox Patristics blog discusses St. Athanasius on whether God can do evil.

nebulaO on the About Mormonism blog compares the Mormon concept of exhaltation and the patristic teaching on theosis.

Ben Johnson on the Western Orthodoxy blog discusses Nancy Pelosi's suggestion that St. Augustine taught that life didn't begin until the third trimester, using a more broad patristic catena.

Maureen on the Aliens in This World discusses the Latin and context of the St. Augustine passage quoted by Nancy Pelosi.

Irenaeus on the Catholidoxy quotes the now infamous Nancy Pelosi interview in which she mentioned St. Augustine, and offers commentary and a wider patristic catena.

Michael from Texas on the To and Through St. Vlads blog discusses an introduction lecture on patristics by Father John Behr.

Weekend Fisher on the Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength analyses Jewish content in the Gnostic Gospels and finds that they don't use much.

JCHFleetguy on the Brain Cramps for God blog discusses the canonization of the Scripture, also favouring a 2nd century canon.

bfju on the Black Cordelias blog discusses the Early Fathers on Purgatory.

Eric Sowell on the Archaic Christianity blog discusses non-violence in the Early Church.

Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog discusses the tradition of the Christian conversion of the Jewish patriarch Hillel II reported by St. Epiphanius of Salamis, follows this entry up with Epiphanius' story of the Jewish patriarch Gamaliel V's crush on a Christian woman and the magical means used to 'cure' him. He also discusses the hidden sense in hagiographical literature.

Philip Sumpter on the Narrative and Ontology blog discusses B.S Childs and the problem of Jewish and Christian appropriation of the Hebrew Testament, republishes Christopher Seitz's recommended reading for understanding figural reading of Scripture, and continues his discussion with consideration of the relationship between the New Testament and the Old Testament. Ther are several other articles in this series, but they seem to focus on Biblical Studies issues more than patristic ones, so I didn't directly link them. Yes, I know that is an artificial distinction, but I have to draw a line somewhere.

Rick Brannon on ricoblog discusses why he likes the Martyrdom of Polycarp and discusses the Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 1.3.3-4.

Thos on the Ecumenicity blog reflects on the 2nd century view of the role of bishops.

Tim Trautman on the Army of Martyrs blog discusses the development of doctrines and the Council of Nicaea.

Father Z on the What Does The Prayer Say? blog discusses St. Augustine's bones. He also has extended coverage of the Nancy Pelosi controversy.

On this blog, I discuss the irony of historical/critical scholarship.

The Marketplace: Book Reviews

Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers blog reviews Gawdat Gabra's Treasures of Coptic Art in the Coptic Museum and Churches of Old Cairo.

Alan Ward on the Precipice Magazine blog reviews Brian Litfin's Getting to Know the Church Fathers and muses on the Fathers as pioneers.

Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog reviews Mike Aquillina's new book, Signs and Mysteries.

Nick Norelli on the Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth blog reviews Tarmo Toom's Classical Trinitarian Theology: A Textbook.

Paul S. on the St. Athanasius and St. Cyril Theological Library blog reviews Rodney Whitacre's A Patristic Greek Reader.

Carlos on the Thoughts and Ruminations of a Man on a Quest blog reviews Pope Benedict XVI book, Jesus, the Apostles, and the Early Church.

On this blog, I review Hubertus Drobner's The Fathers of the Church and Jason Bayasse's Praise Seeking Understanding.

Exhibition Place: Biographies of the Fathers

Bob Thune on the Coram Deo blog discusses St. Clement of Rome and the lessons he learned from him. He follows up with a consideration of St. Justin Martyr's legacy.

The Rodeo: Patristic catenae

David Waltz on the Articuli Fidei blog presents a brief catena on the perils of private judgement.

Dr. Keaton on the Dr. Keaton's Questionable Content blog offers a brief sampler of patristic thoughts.

Taylor Marshal on the Canterbury Tales blog offers a patristic catena against Nancy Pelosi's comments on abortion and the Fathers.

William Pelletier on the Woodside Bible Church blogs offers a patristic catena on the age of the Earth.

The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations

Fr. Stavrophoremonk Symeon on the Oblation blog begins a series on St. John Cassian's Conferences with parts one and two.

On this blog, I continue my series on Sulpicius Severus' Life of St. Martin.

The Apocryphal Aisle: Christian Apocrypha

apologianiak on the Deeper Waters blog recommends that those wondering why the apocryphal gospels were excluded from the canon should read them.

April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospels blog discusses her questions about the newly discovered Apocalypse of Gabriel and Israel Knowl's response to her concerns.

A Glasgow Gnostic on his self-named blog offers a Gnostic reading of Paul as a better alternative to an orthodox reading.

Book Review: Jason Byassee, Praise Seeking Understanding. Reading the Psalms with Augustine.

This week, I've come to the end of my last official 'summer' reading book, Jason Byassee's Praise Seeking Understanding. Reading the Psalms with Augustine. I've already blogged on Byassee's attitude to historical/critical scholarship's relationship to the literal level of Scriptural reading. Now, I want to discuss Bayasse's book in more detail, especially the nature of the project he pursues in this book.

Byasse's main concern in this book is to recommend Augustine (especially demonstrated in his Ennarationes in Psalmos) as a resource to teach us to read Scripture more allegorically. In this sense, he challenges the current scholarly wisdom both about the centrality of historical/critical scholarship as a (or the only?) resource to understand the Bible and about the arbitrary and inferior quality of allegorical exegetical approaches to the Bible. He places himself firmly in the tradition of recent scholars like Andrew Louth, Nicholas Lash, David Steinmetz, Stephen Fowl, Lewis Ayres and Robert Wilken, who have, in their own ways, champion or championed a return to allegorical readings of the Bible. There has been a recent revival in interest in 'theological exegesis' and Bayasse's book should be understood as contributing to this conversation.

The core of the book deals with four main issues: the Christological emphasis of Augustine's exegesis of the Psalms, the issue of beauty and aesthetics in Augustinian exegesis, the charge of anti-Semitism levelled at Augustine (and the other Fathers) and the value of multi-sense exegesis. I won't summarize all of these sections (otherwise, why read the book?), but I want to make a few observations.

One of the more striking discussions in the book is Bayasse's discussion of aesthetics in Augustinian exegesis. This will, I think, strike many of my readers, even those initiated into patristics for some time, as an odd emphasis. For many of us who read the Fathers, the Fathers are a mine of information about how the early Church operated, came to the doctrinal decisions that they handed down to us and a touchstone of orthodoxy which brings with it an authority greater than any other Christian writing, except the Bible. What Byassee reminded me was that the Ennarationes and, in fact, most other patristic works, were rhetorical works intended, as the rhetorical handbooks of the age noted, to "instruct, delight and move". We moderns are excellent at discovering the instruction, but delight and inspiration fly right over our head. Bayasse argues that we need to recover this delight to appreciate what Augustine was doing and to apply it in our own exegesis. Byassee argues that allegory served these purposes by revealing unexpected meanings in the Biblical text (filtered and, hence, bounded by the Rule of Faith). These meanings instruct us, to be sure, but they, hopefully, also delight us and move us to greater faith. Bayasse suggests that even some of the more unusual interpretations need to be seen in this light, rather than merely dismissed as irrelevant and silly. No doubt, patristic authors can get wearing sometimes, but I think that we all need to recover the aesthetic sense of the Fathers and enjoy them as much as we learn from them. I feel that I've barely begun, but this is a direction that I'm inspired to investigate.

A second point that Bayasse makes is his emphasis that allegory, especially Augustine's use of allegory, is not as arbitrary as it has been alleged, at least, since the Reformation (and more so after the Enlightenment). He points out that at no time did the Fathers (even Origen) view allegory as a way to escape the text, but rather it tightly controlled by the Rule of Faith (early versions of the Creeds). The Rule of Faith limited the possible allegorical readings of Scripture and, deriving from the same source as the New Testament (the apostolic testimony), it served as a check on attempts to use allegory to get around uncomfortable passages. This is important to remember because this has always been my concern with Bibilcal allegory and the reason why I've had problems with it in the past. Yet, in the hands of a master, it can bring light and explain elements of Scripture that other approaches can't. It is particularly use for the reading of the Old Testament and, of course, the Psalms. It certainly informs Augustine's basically Christological reading of the Psalms in the Ennarationes.

A third interesting point about Augustinian exegesis which struck me is that Augustine (and the other Fathers) took Scripture so seriously that even its apparent errors served a purpose in God's self-revelation in Scripture. This point interests me in the light of the good sized industry in both scholarly and popular religious writing to find the errors of the Bible and use them to discredit all, but what the author has as his/her vision of Christianity. We've all seen books like this, so I don't think I really need to list examples. What is striking about Augustine's attitude to these 'error's is that he understands them as opportunities to delve deeper into what God is doing in the Bible. Since he found it incomprehensible that God could make a mistake and because he believed firmly in the inspired quality of the Bible, Augustine argued that these 'mistakes' were there so that we would be encouraged to read carefully and deeply into Scripture, rather than merely use it as a rulebook or reference work on the Christian life (this is paraphrased, of course). These 'errors' mean something and it is the challenge of the Scriptural exegete to delve into their meaning.

What I like about this observation is that it neatly jumps over the inerrancy debate. It affirms that sometimes things can look wrong in the Bible on a literal level, but that God uses even these apparent errors. It isn't that God is being sneaky and planting mistakes to mislead someone (on the analogy of burying dinosaur bones to mislead an unfaithful humanity into believing evolution as some creationists have argued), but that God's power to inspire is so great that He uses the 'human' errors of the writers. In that sense, Scripture is both inerrant and inspired, even if the authors were only the latter. I don't know what to do with this idea, but I'm floating it to see if this is a legitimate interpretation of Augustine's point. I wonder.

A last thing that I think is important out of this book. Bayasse spends a lot of time emphasizing that he isn't dismissing historical/critical readings of the Bible. He argues that they are useful for understanding the literal level of the Bible and have a place in any exegesis of the Bible. Nor does he argue that only allegorical readings should be used in Biblical exegesis. He argues that the Bible bears interpretations on various levels at the same time and that it impoverishes our understanding of the Bible if we privilege one level over the other. The fact that we have done so in modernity (the literal level, ironically) has meant that our exegesis is too shallow. We need to deepen it with the other level of exegesis. In the end, that is the core of Byassee's project.

This is definitely a must-read for anyone who is discontent with how the Bible is read today. It is a challenge to read the Bible more deeply and it is a challenges which has started me thinking about how to apply it in my own study and reading of the Bible. Byassee's plea for new communities (almost a new monasticism), I think, is a hard one to achieve and is primarily aimed at seminaries. My own question is how do ordinary Christians learn to read the Bible more deeply. That is something that I'm sure I'll return to in the near future.

Peace,
Phil

I really must get an editor. It appears that not only did I give the wrong first name to the author of this excellent book, but I persistently mis-spelled his last name. My apologies!

The Irony of Historical/Critical Scholarship

I've been reading Jason Byassee's Praise Seeking Understanding: Reading the Psalms with Augustine over the last few weeks. I do intend to write a full book review on this book over the next week or so (God, lesson prep and the impending Patristics Carnival permitting), but I thought it might be interesting to reflect a little on one of Byassee's key points from earlier in book: the relationship of historical-critical scholarship to a Christian reading of the Bible.

Without giving too much away, Byassee's main point in this book is that contemporary readings of the Bible are impoverished by the modern dislike of allegorical (and moral) readings of the Bible. He argues that modernist readings tend to limit themselves to putting the Bible within its original historical context and to establish critical readings of the texts based on that context. Byassee argues that this kind of study is good and, certainly, modern scholarship has tools at its hands that the Fathers, including St. Augustine, never had. While cultural familiarity with the world of the Bible, access to now lost oral traditions and the ability to speak or have access to native speakers of the biblical languages offset many of our modern scholarly advantages, there is little room for doubt that modern scholarly readings deserve attention by anyone who is trying to work out what the Bible means.

The problem for Byassee is that we stop there. That is, we moderns think that the only way to deal with the Bible in an intelligent manner is historical-critical scholarship. We tend to ignore the other levels of readings favoured by Christian writers from the Biblical era through the patristic and beyond: the moral, the allegorical and others senses I'm sure I'm neglecting. If you want a fast way to laughed out of a classroom in most universities, allegorical readings will do it because they are considered capricious and bogus. Bayassee's answer is that allegory as practiced by Fathers like St. Augustine had controls on it, most notably the Rule of Faith and orthodox christology. I'll return to this in my projected book review.

I could have saved all this for the review, but what struck me is the irony of something Byassee points in this part of the discussion. He points out that all the historical-critical interpretation at which we moderns excel would be considered by patristic writers as merely operating on the literal level. That is, while the patristic writers valued historical and critical interpretation to sort out historical and linguistic problems in the Biblical text, they believed this was merely the starting point for Christian interpreters. They would, while, possibly, impressed by the technical skill of our historical and linguistic commentary, see our efforts at Biblical interpretation as shallow, scratching only the surface of what we could glean from the well of Scripture.

This struck me as ironic because, on those occasions I delve into biblical scholarship (either reading blogs or in my own private readings), it is not uncommon to pat ourselves on the back for our prowess in historical and linguistic analysis and to, either implicitly or explicitly, assume that we know the Bible and the world better than our poor benighted predecessors in reading the Bible. There is an arrogance in that attitude which I enjoy seeing punctured, so I enjoyed the irony. It really is true that humility should be a characteristic of the Biblical exegete and I'm not sure we moderns (and post-moderns) have always been good at that particular virtue. It is hard to be humble when one believes firmly in a modernist model of progress either in its classical modernist sense or in its more subtle post-modern (or is it late-modernist) guise.

The irony is heightened, I think, because it is also common for Biblical scholars to shake their heads at the readings of the Bible in churches and yearn for 'critical' readings to take the place of the old traditional readings. This isn't to say that these critical readings don't have value, but the kind of yearnings I note are quite out of touch with how Christians read Scripture and the place of Scripture among Christians. Critical readings aren't more popular because they are very much an elitist pleasure and really have little bearing on the spiritual readings on which most observant Christians base their spiritual lives.

This is, of course, the rub. All too often, we find modern Biblical scholarship engaged in approaches which undercut spiritual readings and tradition. I find a challenge as bracing as anyone else, but there are times when I honestly think that much of Biblical scholarship is spent on proving just how these spiritual readings are untrue and at discovering how almost anything in the Bible just doesn't apply to us. There are, I should note, very faithful people writing Biblical scholarship, who pride themselves on supporting faithful readings, but I don't think many could deny that there are also many who seek to distance themselves through this kind of scholarship from God and the Bible. The fault isn't in the practice of Biblical scholarship (or any scholarship-the same criticism could be levelled at scholars of the patristic era or any era), but in how scholarship is employed: to bring one closer to God or to distance oneself.

I think this explains many things about the world of Biblical and Early Christian studies these days. Certainly, the bitterness of the divide between those favouring a more religious studies approach and those who favour a more explicitly Christian approach can be explained both by a fundamental difference in philosophy/theology, but by a visceral rejection of each other's spiritual choices. It is hard to get either side to acknowledge the good of each other's approach, even if they may find each other's findings useful. I don't think it gets recognized enough how often these kind of differences are, actually, not the result of rationally chosen scholarly positions, but emerge out of one's own experience with religion and other believers. That is, I think, an difficulty with which we all grapple.

So, how does a faithful Christian react to this? I think it is by doing what we've done for centuries. Keep reading the Bible, learn from anyone we can about the historical and linguistic elements of the text, but continue to dig deeper into growing in faith and understanding of what God is trying to tell us. For that, we need to read the Bible at many different levels, not merely scratching the literal surface.

Peace,
Phil

Patristic Carnival XV- Call for Submissions

Welcome to Patristic Carnival XV. This month, the carnival is back here at hyperekperissou this month.

The guidelines remain the same as Modest Proposal entry back in November, 2006 and my additions in August, 2007.

The last day of submission will be August 31 and the postings will be up by the week of September 7th. .

Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)


Peace,Phil

Sulpicius Severus, Life of St. Martin 21

Here is the next installment of the Life of St. Martin.

Text:

It is even agreed that angels were seen by him many times and that, he used to hold conversations with them. Truly, he perceived the devil as so well and kept him under observation that whether the devil retained proper appearance or whether he changed himself into different images of spiritual wickedness, he was seen in any disguise by Martin. (2) When the devil knew that he was not able to escape Martin, he frequently oppressed him with abuse because he was unable to deceive him with trickery. At one times, the devil, holding a bloody horn of a cow, broke into Martin's cell with a great roar. Showing his bloody right hand and rejoicing in the crime which he recently committed, he said "Where is your power, Martin? I killed one of your people just now!" (3) Martin, after calling together the brothers, reported what the devil had told him: he ordered them to go carefully through the cells of each of their brothers since someone had been afflicted by this disaster. They announced that none the monks were missing, but a peasant who was hired by them to bring wood on a wagon, went into the forest. Therefore, Martin ordered them to go to meet him. (4) In this way, the peasant was discovered not far from the monastery almost dead. Drawing his last breath, he told the brothers the cause of his death and wounds. While he was drawing together more tightly the loosened reins on the yoked oxen, one of them, tossing its head, drove its horn into the peasant's groin. Not much later, the man died. You see by what judgement of God, this power is given to the devil. (5) It was remarkable in Martin that not only in this situation which we reported above, but in many of this type that, as often as it happened, Martin foresaw it long before or he told the brothers about the things announced to him.

Commentary:

In this passage, we see a beginning of Sulpicius' evidence of St. Martin's power over the devil himself. Given the generally escalating seriousness of the spiritual threats to Martin, the appearance of St. Martin's contests with the devil makes sense at this point in this Life. One of the striking things about this is the affirmation, at the beginning of this passage, that St. Martin could not be tricked by the devil. That is, he could always discern the devil whatever he did to deceive him. This is an important element of a saint because spiritual discernment is important in spiritual warfare by the saints, so it was important for Sulpicius to emphasize this.



This is followed by an affirmation that the devil was unable to do anything directly to St. Martin himself, but rather was confined to taunting him. This is an expression of St. Martin's spiritual power. This relative immunity from the attacks of the devil is the mark of a saint. Indeed, it is striking as this story unfolds that the devil is unable to injure St. Martin or even his monks. Rather it is someone who is on the fringes of the community, a hired man, whose life in the world, presumably, made him more vulnerable to the assaults of the devil or even irate oxen. The taunts of the devil are a little forced here because, while he achieved a success in injuring someone associated with St. Martin, he did not manage to injure the community itself.

I must say that I was a little surprised that there is no healing element to this story. The poor peasant dies shortly after gasping out his story. While sad for the peasant, a healing wasn't the point of the story. Rather it was St. Martin's foreknowledge of the the devil's designs that Sulpicius highlights. It is clearly suggested that the devil still has power, but that holy men like St. Martin have the gift of foreknowledge and/or discernment to recognize the hand of the devil in the world. That seems to be enough for Sulpicius in this story.

Peace,
Phil

Book Review, Hubertus Drobner, The Fathers of the Church. A Comprehensive Introduction

I am enjoying my summer, partly because of the extra time I've had with my son and my wife, but also because it give me a chance to read more. And that means more book reviews. So here is the latest in this summer of the book review: Hubertus Drobner's The Fathers of the Church. A Comprehensive Introduction (Siegfred S. Schatzmann translator).

This is the translation of Dr. Drobner's introductory textbook on patristics. That is, of course, the place to start. It is not intended as a replacement for the multi-volume patrologies like Quasten's (to name the best of the English language patrologies- even if it is beginning to get dated), but is intended for those starting the study of the Fathers. As a single volume (and despite the sub-title), it is impossible to go into the detail that a multi-volume work can, but Dr. Drobner covers the highlights. He discusses the most important writers and the most important works in a clear and precise way. The translation is an excellent one which enhances the readability of this textbook.

The main value of this book to me is twofold. First, it takes into account recent scholarship in a systematic way. Given the fact that many of the accessible resource works are getting a little long in the tooth, I appreciate the attempt to keep up to date with the important scholarly development over the past few decades. This is particularly true with the (albeit brief) discussion on the apocryphal writings which is getting to be a scholarly industry in its own right.

Second, I appreciate the up-to-date bibliographies appended at the end of each sub-section; bibliographies which were updated in the German second edition and supplemented by an ancillary updated English bibliography (Complete to 2006). It is very helpful to know what recent editions are out as well as translations in order to guide one's studies.

When this book came out earlier this year, the early reviews I've seen lauded it as an essential first resource for patristics. After reading it, I agree that it is an excellent starting point for studies in patristics. Indeed, while I borrowed this book from my wife's college library, I intend to add it to my own library in the course of the next few months. Can we say Christmas present!? I know you could.

Peace,
Phil

Patristic Carnival XIV- July, 2008

It's been another busy month in patristics with a lot of interesting posts along the way. Enjoy!

Front Gate: Introductions to the Fathers

Marilyn Hughes on the Suite 101 blog features a brief introduction to the Fathers for a Catholic audience.

The Midway: Articles on the Fathers

Thos on the Ecumenicityblog points out a reversal in the spiritual/material manifestation of the Church in a comparison between 2nd Clement and the Westminister Confession and struggles with Ignatius of Antioch's views on Eucharist, episcopal authority and relics.

Geoff Ashley on his self-named blog deals with the question of where we get the Bible.

Dr. Alexander Roman on the Oblation blog considers St. Benedict's rule in a (Ukrainian) Orthodox setting. This is a setting I hadn't expected and was happy to be enlightened.

Ben on the Dunelm Road blog discusses how to track down patristic citations of the Bible using the myriad of electronic tools at the scholar's fingertips.

Tamie on the Traces of Tamie blog starts with the dispute over worship chorus' over-emphasis on the humanity of Jesus and continues with a discussion of the insights of Athanasius and the 5th century Fathers on the subject of Jesus' humanity and divinity. She follows up with a post contrasting Anglican attempts at unity with the Father's imperative to defend the Gospel, even if it meant being offensive.

Phil Gons on the Logos Bible Software announces the launch of the Patrologia Cursus Completus, Series Graeca.

James White on the Pros Apologin blog muses over the Patrologia Cursus Completus, Series Graeca.

Father Chadius on the Hermeneia blog discusses his fascination with history, the Pilgrimage of Egeria's witness to the Church of Jerusalem's liturgy in comparison to emotional, but brief modern worship.

On this blog, I continue my discussion of Origen's On Prayer, discuss the state of patrology online. Anne on the Heart, Strength, Mind and Soul blog contributes to the discussion in a separate post on her blog. Eric Sowell follows suite quickly thereafter.

Michael Larionov on the forwardandup blog discusses some insights of Victor Kharalamov in Theology Today on theosis in patristic theology and speaks out against the modern tendency to blame the Platonic element in Christian theology for any number of theological sins.

Will Huysmen on The Banana Republican blog discusses the patristic case for the Immaculate Conception as suggested by Pope Pius IX.

Richard Aguirre on the regula fidei blog discusses Eusebius' teachings on schism, sects and the unity of the orthodox tradition

An Augustinian Heart on the Christianity Community blog reflects on St. Ambrose on the Holy Eucharist.

Freddy on the Soli Deo Gloria blog dicusses the anthropology of the patristic era (and of the early mediaeval period).

Holly Pivic on the Fulfilled Prophecy blog features a series on the Church Fathers and the Anti-Christ in parts one, two, three and four.

Philip Sumpter on the Narrative and Ontology blog discusses the regula fidei (rule of faith) in a series of quotes. Here is the table of contents for the series (I love this idea of giving a table of contents for long series!)

Puritan Lad on the Christianity in History blog attempts to prove that St. Gregory Thaumaturgus was an amillenialist.

Amadeo on the Praying Mantis blog discusses patristic attitudes to unity, striving for the Gospel, abiding with Christ and missional service. Scroll down a bit as the link doesn't connected directly to the entry for July 7th.

The Linguist on The Language Fan blog discusses the challenges of patristic Greek and the thought of Theodoret of Cyrrhus on the Octateuch.

Jason Engwer on the Triablogue blog disputes about the evidence for pre-millenialism in patristic thought.

Anne on Heart, Strength, Soul and Mind blog discusses whether Tertullian believed in purgatory and assesses the historical value of the Gospel of Mary.

Maria Lectrix on her self-named blog gives a list of her audio books, an excellent resource for those interested in patristics.

derek4messiah on the Messianic Jewish Musings blog discusses the patristic evidence for the Ebionites and whether this group were really just Messianic Jews. He follows up with a sermon he preached dealing with the same topic.

Micahel Newnham on the Phoenix Preacher blog discusses creeds and councils in church history between 300 and 400 AD.

The Budding Theologian on his self-named blog features a discussion on the 4th Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon) in three parts (Part One, Part Two, Part Three)

Chris Zeichman on Thoughts on Antiquity considers the state of scholarship on Marcian and the Synoptic probleem and proposes a new solution.

Andy Farmer on the Covenant Fellowship Church Family reflects on the contribution of the Apostolic Fathers.

Andrew Compton on The Reformed Reader blog discusses whether the Church Fathers really are important for biblical interpretation.

bfhu on the Black Cordelias blog muses on the implications of the so-called paganization of the Catholic Church as a result of its acceptance by the Emperor Constantine.

donaldkim on his self-named blog discusses St. Antony from a Protestant perspective.
Tim Troutman in his renovated and newly renamed blog, Army of Martyrs, features a series on the development of doctrine: an introductory post outlining the problem, hierarchical developments in the third century, the development of papal juridiction in the third century, and a discussion of papal jurisdiction in relation to the Roman political climate in the third century.

The Park Street Blogma Dogma blog features a reflection on the Christian life today and what St. Ignatius of Antioch teaches us about living up to our faith. He follows up with a reflection on St. Irenaeus, sola scriptura and babies who fall down.

Wymen Richardson on the Walking Together blog continues his patristic summaries, summarizing the Epistle of Barnabas, the fragments of St. Papias and the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr.

Tim Enlose on the Societas Christiani blog challenges the Reformed post-millenialist, James Jordan, for his views that the Church Fathers were actually 'Church Babies' because their theological thinking was much more primative than our exalted standard.

Eric Sowell on the Archaic Christianities blog investigates Irenaeus and the text of Matthew 11, 27.

Danny Garland on the Irish, Catholic and Dangerous blog gives a helpful summary of the Eight Ecumenical Councils.

Roger Pearse on the Thoughts on Antiquity blog discusses St. Cyril of Alexandria after the Council of Ephesus, follows up on a disparaging post on St. Cyril and discusses when the corruption of the Church occcured.

Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog discusses St. John Chrysostom, Jews and Julian the Apostate (with a review of Robert Wilken's book, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century inserted).

The Marketplace: Book Reviews

Georg S. Adamson on the Revelation Resources blog reviews Hubertus Drobner's Lehrbuch der Patrologie, the English edition of which I'm currently reading (watch for a review in the next month from me).

Russell Veldman on the Faster Unto Thee blog reviews Brian Litfin's Getting to Know the Church Fathers.

Polycarp on The Church of Jesus Christ blog reviews J.N.D. Kelly's classic Early Christian Doctrines.

Kent Eilers on the Theology Forum reviews Mark Husbands & Jeffrey Greeman's Ancient Faith for the Church's Future, which features essays from the 2007 Wheaten Theology Conference. This is definitely on my must-read list.

Paul S. on the St. Athanasius and St. Cyril Theological Library blog features a review of Pauline Allen's book on Severus of Antioch.

Tim Troutman in his renovated and newly renamed blog, Army of Martyrs, reviews Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition Volume 1.

Eric Sowell on the Archaic Christianities blog reviews Michael Grant's biography of Constantine I
John Hobbins on the Ancient Hebrew Poetry blog discusses Christians and Jews in late Roman antiquity in light of modern anti-Semitism.

Robin Perry on the Theolgoical Scribbles blog reviews April DeConick's book, The Gospel of Thomas.

On this blog, I review Craig Allert's A High View of Scripture? and Pangiotes Chrestou's Greek Orthodox Patrology: An Introduction to the Study of the Church Fathers.

Exhibition Place: Biographies of the Fathers

Candy W. on the Catholic E-Books blog features St. Clement of Alexandria and his theological treatises.

The Rodeo: Patristic catenae

Dave Armstrong on the Biblical Evidence for Catholicism blog features a catena dealing with (alleged) examples of anti-Semitism among the Church Fathers with counter-examples. He follows us with a catena on the sinlessness of Mary.

bfhu on the Black Cordelias blog provides a patristic catena on the practice of confession.

Will Huysmen on The Banana Republican blog features a patristic catena defending the filioque close before the Photian schism.

Richard Aguirre on the regula fidei blog features patristic catenas on the Perpetual Virginity of St. Mary, and on the Holy Eucharist.

The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations

No entries this month.

The Apocryphal Aisle: Christian Apocrypha

Tony Chartrand-Burke on the Apocryphicity blog features a discussion of religious intolerance in the Academy.

April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospel blog asks for questions about the newly discovered Apocalypse of Gabriel, continues this discussion in light of Hosea 6, 1-3, provides a helpful list of links for coverage on the Acocalypse of Gabriel, discusses the Gnostic perspective on who was in Noah's Ark, questions the exclusivity of the Gnostics, considers the accomodation of Gnostics to the culture around them.

Well, that's it for the month. I hope you enjoyed the Patristics Carnival XIV! If you are interested in hosting Patristics Carnvial XV or a Patristics Carnival in the near future (say, to the end of the year), let me know soon!

Peace,
Phil

Pangiotes K. Chrestiou, Greek Orthodox Patrology: An Introduction to the Study of the Church Fathers. G. Dion. Dragas, transl.

One of the nice things about summer is that it gives me a lot of time to read, so that means that I have more books to review. The book that I'm reviewing today, Pangiotes K. Chrestiou's Greek Orthodox Patrology: An Introduction to the Study of the Church Fathers was something of a find as I was browsing the theological shelves at my wife's favourite theological library on campus. I don't often get a chance to read the Eastern Orthodox side of things, so I welcomed the chance to do so here. Eastern Orthodoxy is, after all, a rather different theological world from the Western traditions of both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Yet, all three traditions (Protestantism, unfortunately, the least of these) have or are recognizing the continuity between themselves and the Fathers, so many of the questions which concern me on this blog concern the Eastern Orthodox world as well.

This book is the translation of the introductory part of Crestiou's Greek Patrology (1979) and allows us a glimpse into the Greek Orthodox view of the Fathers. I say, Greek Orthodox because the tone throughout this book is an emphasis on the importance of the Greek influence on Christianity extending even to the pre-Christian classical era (exemplified in Plato). Here we find the tradition of Moses' influence on Plato or the origin of Neoplatonism through the Christian born Ammonias cited without much comment. Both of these traditions have patristic origins, but not many Western trained academics would be willing to cite them without trying to distance themselves from them. For myself, I find both of these suggestions interesting, but I really don't know how you'd prove the connections implied.

Similarly, the section discussing the importance of Greek for the development of Christianity is striking in its implication that the only way that one can be orthodox is through the Greek tradition of the Fathers. The connection that Crestou makes between heresy and different languages is a case and point. He argues that the extension of Christian writing into different languages tended to be done by heretics, citing Tertullian, later in life a Montantist, in the case of Latin and Tatian, who started his own sect, in the case of Syriac. He doesn't note that both Tertullain and Tatian started off as orthodox and have left us orthodox writing which continue to be respected in patristic circles. I'm also curious to know how his non-Greek Orthodox coreligionists take his philohellinist position.

Another interesting element of this emphasis on the Greek tradition is an almost total neglect of both the Western and Eastern non-Greek traditions which are usually accepted as elements of most patrologies. Western writers are hardly ever mentioned and, when they are, usually they are mentioned with disapproval. Now, to an extent, this is fair enough. Given the striking ignorance of most Western Christians of Eastern Orthodoxy, a little turnabout is fair play. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, not all Western writers are out of the patristic canon in the East, so I'm not sure why these aren't mentioned. Perhaps my orthodox readers can enlightenment on this point.

The discussion of Church Fathers, while more limited geographically, is expanded in time by extending the patristic age to include the Byzantine period. This is not a common practice in the West, but it makes sense in the East because the sense of continuity with the patristic era is never really broken. Ecclesiastical writers even in the last years of the Byzantine Empire continued to see themselves very much in continuity with the Fathers in the more widely acknowledged limits of the patristic era (c.AD 70-750). The reason for the more narrow definition of the patristic era in most modern treatments appears to have been that, after St. John of Damascus, theological writers were more purely derivative and, hence, they didn't deserve the title of Church Father. I sometimes wonder if that isn't our own impoverished idea of tradition and our over-emphasis on creativity in theological writing that is blinding us. Writing in a tradition is more confining, but opportunities for originality appear when new problems are thrown at us and we struggle to figure out how to deal with them in the context of our tradition. The Hesychiast controversy in the 14th century is an excellent example of this kind of problem in Eastern Orthodox and it spawned a flowering of theological writings including St. Gregory Palamas and others who, eventually, prevailed, preserving the mystical tradition of Orthodoxy against their more rationalistic opponents. The fact that Palamas and other used the Fathers who proceeded them shouldn't change the fact that they were forced to do so differently than their predecessors had done before.

As a side note, the translation is generally a good one, but there are times when the vocabulary and style can be distracting; not so much wrong as odd. I suspect this is the survival of Hellenisms in the English, but this doesn't detract from the meaning intended.

As an overview of Greek Orthodox thinking on the Fathers, this is a book well worth reading. Be ready for the Greek slant, of course, but this is an good way to see the Fathers from a rather different angle than most of us are used to.

Peace,
Phil

Book Review: Craig D. Allert, A High View of Scripture?

The last few months I've been working through Baker Academic's Evangelical Ressourcement series and I've finally reached the latest book in the series, Craig D. Allert's A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon. This book is an interesting application of patristic studies to a quintessentially evangelical topic: the authority of the Bible. Or, to be more precise, the inerrancy of the Bible and the issue of verbal plenary inspiration. For those not familiar with the evangelical theological world, Dr. Allert includes a discussion of how to define that most shadowing theological sub-group, the evangelical and a good discussion of evangelical attitudes to the Bible and the process of canonization. In the course of this discussion, he reviews scholarship on the process of canonization and brings us up to date with recent scholarship on this question.

The gist of Dr. Allert's argument concerning the canon is that we can't really speak of a closed canon until the 4th century at the earliest. The arguments of Harnack and others (popular among evangelicals as well) that the canon was more or less closed by the second century can only be judged as premature because, while we can say that the books of what we recognize as the canonical writings were recognized as being peculiarly authoritative, the question of canon stayed either unasked or unanswered. Other writings retained authoritative status and the concept of a closed canon had not yet crystallized. His main point in emphasizing that this is the process of canonization was a slow one and has to be considered as an issue which the Church struggled with over, at least, three hundred years.

This latter point also emphasizes Dr. Allert's other main argument: the centrality of tradition and the Church in forming the Scripture. This is opposed to the commonly held evangelical view that the Scriptures are functionally separate from both tradition and the Church so that the proper province of interpretation was with the individual, not with the Church as a whole.

He also ends his book with an extended discussion about how this view of the canon would affect discussions and disputes about inerrancy which have plagued evangelical scholarship for some years. His contention is that the concept of inerrancy should contain within it a recognition of different genres, historical periods and other factors in order to help us interpret it more effectively. He argues that this should be considered consistent with the concept of inerrancy suggested in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and Evangelicalism (a recognized, if not universally recognized, standard agreed upon in 1978).

While I characterize myself as an evangelical Anglican, I must admit that I really don't have a dog in this fight. The kind of rigourous inerrancy which Dr. Allert addresses in this book is not a part of my experience, except in a few encounters on internet bulletin boards. Dr. Allert's form of inerrancy makes better sense to me, although I would also fight shy of the term to avoid misunderstandings. Clearly, the Scriptures are authoritative, but equally clearly we need to interpret them. Furthermore, I also agree strongly with Dr. Allert that it is one of the peculiar jobs of the Church to interpret Scripture and help its parishioners to do so. I've seen what can happen when we try to interpret the Bible without the aid of the wisdom of the Church and it ain't pretty. Still, I do have a couple of caveats about this book.

First, I wonder if we aren't over-defining the term, canon. In canon studies, as presented by Dr. Allert, the term seems to be rather closely defined as a closed-canon. That is, a set of books to which none can be added or subtracted. Yet, as Dr. Allert points out several times, the Greek term canon wasn't not ever used this way, but rather seemed to apply to a set of something (anything, it seems). This makes me wonder if we aren't trying to impose a modern understanding of canon (the closed- canon) on a period when this was not understood. What I wonder is whether there is any contradiction about talking about the second century as producing a partially open canon. This, it seems fits the evidence and respects the idea that the canon wasn't really fixed until later. I wonder if our obsession with canon hasn't caused a distortion right off the bat- a distortion which, despite an effort to avoid it, is reflected in Dr. Allert's argument.

A second concern is Dr. Allert's use of the term, Scripture which is used as a middle term between strict canon and any old Christian writing. Dr. Allert defines Scriptures as being any writing quoted by a later Christian author. I wonder about this because I'm not sure it is sufficiently nuanced. I would add that it would be a writing considered in some way as authoritative. This keeps the door open to writings which were to become non-canonical, but were considered authoritative in some way. In that sense, the process of canonization may be considered to be a sorting of Christian writings into levels of authority, not just restricting what books may be read and how.

A last concern is a more technical one. On pp.153-5, Dr. Allert discusses the use of the term theopneustos in 2nd Timothy 3,16, common translated as 'God-breathed' or 'inspired by God'. The context of this discussion is Dr. Allert's argument against verbal plenary inspiration in which he argues that the Bible doesn't have a clear concept of inspiration. The use of this term in 2nd Timothy, it is argued, gives evidence for just that concept, but Dr. Allert disputes this assumption. He argues that this term is unclear because it is only attested once in the New Testament, so it is difficult to know just what was meant here. He further argues that attempts to use its etymology to elucidate that meaning can be misleading because the etymological origins of a word may be very different from the eventual meanings assigned to that word. This is true, but I don't think that we are as resourceless as Dr. Allert assume we are. After all, pneuma and its cognates (like theopneustos) are well attested in both Christian and pagan literature. The fact is that inspiration is a common meaning for pneuma and its cognates even in pagan literature, so the common translation of 'inspired by God' isn't that outlandish.

These flaws are perhaps understandable, given Dr. Allert's concern to challenge evangelical thinking on the Bible nor do should they cause this book to be discredited. Dr. Allert's book is an excellent discussion of the issue of canonization and an excellent application of patristic thinking to contemporary debates within evangelicalism.

Peace,
Phil

Patrology Online- Wrapup

Many, many thanks to those of you who took time to answer my questions on the state of patrology online. I was very pleased with the wide range of answers (some expected and some not)and the thoughtfulness behind them. There is a lot in them that we all should be reflecting on as we consider what we can contribute to the study of patristics online. That was one reason why I thought it would be helpful to ask the questions I did. Periodic group reflection, I think, can be very helpful.

Of course, I had another ulterior motive. Since the summer began, I've been trying to figure out where I can contribute to the patristics world. I am, as I've noted several times on this blog, an amateur (I hope in its true sense) in patristics and an autodidact while I'm at it. This isn't my day job, so my time for patristic study and writing is strictly limited. Detailed academic study just isn't in the cards for me because I neither have the time or the connections or the qualifications to write scholarly tomes. There is also the legitimate question about whether this is my gift or not. So, I really have to consider carefully where my gifts are and what I can do, given my time constraints and abilities.

With that in mind, here are my thoughts of where we are in the patristic field on line and where my thinking is about my own possible contribution.

First, where we are. A lot of work has been already done on making translations of major and many minor patristic writers available online. The result is that we frequently have multiple versions on these writers online and it is difficult to find an author in the main group of Fathers who does not have, at least, some of his writings online. The quality of the translations vary, but, usually, they're sound, if, often, somewhat dated in their style. This is, of course, one of the results of using older works whose copyright protection has lapsed. Usually, this isn't an issue, given that most people interested in the Fathers tend to be highly literate and able to handle the occasionally complicated prose of these translations. I do worry sometimes because I know the difficulties that my students in Classical Civilization have with translations of the same era and that this can be a barrier to some people from reading these very beneficial texts. This problem is slowly being remedied with various translations projects.

Texts are similarly in good shape, if not quite as good as translations. Latin texts are excellent, with most major Latin authors online. Greek is lagging slightly behind because it has taken time to regularize the posting of different scripts online. Still, Greeks texts are appearing increasingly and, if we could get away from the PDF problem alluded to by several commentators on last week's post, we'll make more progress. My impression of non-classical languages is that next to nothing is online, but, honestly, I really don't know the state of collections of texts for these languages.

Secondary literature and interpretation is lagging a bit, but is starting to catch up. Access to journals is potentially improving, but, usually, these are locked up in university databases which are increasingly, for copyright purposes, being restricted to members of those academic communities. If you can get an alumni access to a university library, it is probably at this stage worth the money, if you are an amateur. I note that tools for interpreting these texts are lagging behind, although one can use classics linguistic tools in a pinch.

Discussion and interaction online is also improving. The emergence of patristic blogging has helped the exchange of ideas and dissemination of news. This has been very helpful and I hope will improve over time.

So, that leads me to wonder what I can do to contribute to this work?

My opinion about this changes from day to day, but here is what I'm wondering. I'm thinking of the idea of an online patristic community along the lines of eLatin eGreek, eLearn which would eventually include explanations of what patristics is, reference resources to aid in the reading of the Fathers, links to texts and translations, discussion fora and whatever else we can come up with.

This is, of course, an extremely ambitious project and there is no question that I could do this alone. Where I see my talents coming into play is in creating and/or facilitating the creation of dictionaries, linguistic resources and, possibly, commentaries to aid in the understanding of patrisic texts. Clearly, this will not appear all at once, but there are engines for creating online communities and we could start relatively quickly.

So, as before, what do you think? I'm not committing to anything because I know that I need a lot more time to think and about how much time and energy I have and whether this is a good use of it. So, I'll ask for your prayers and your thoughts.

Peace,
Phil

Patristics Carnival XIV- Call for Submissions

Welcome to Patristic Carnival XIV. This month, the carnival is back here at hyperekperissou this month.

The guidelines remain the same as Modest Proposal entry back in November, 2006 and my additions in August, 2007.

The last day of submission will be July 31st and the postings will be up by the week of August 4th. .

Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)

Peace,
Phil

Patrology Online: What's Good and What Still Needs to be Done?

I was thinking I might try a change of pace this week. Instead of one of my essays, I want to hear from my readers on two basic questions. You can either answer in the comments or, if you like, write on it on your own blog. Just send me the link, if you chose the latter option.

Question #1:
What is the best site or resource online for the study of Patristics?

That is, what is that you find most useful for your reading of the Fathers? This could be anything from sites for texts, translations, background information or whatever, so long as it is patristic related.

Question #2:
What still needs to done in patristics online?

That is, what would you like to see added? Do we need more reference works (a new patrology on the lines of DIR (de imperatoribus romanis? Or what texts do we need translated (Photius' Biblioteca)? Or something else.

Let me know what you think.

Peace,
Phil

Origen, On Prayer 5-9

Our Origen series continues with a discussion on whether it makes sense to pray. Our online text starts at section three and continues to section four. As usual, I continue to use my St. Vladimir press text.

Here Origen is dealing with the question of whether prayer is superfluous or not. That is, certainly anyone can pray, but is God listening. This is, of course, a very contemporary issue which continues to be debated even within Christian circles. Origen rightly refuses to debate those who deny both God and providence because recognizes that there is really no common ground that would allow such a discussion to go forward. Of course, someone denying God will say that prayer is useless. If one makes that assumption, how could prayer have any use?

Instead, Origen affirms that he is addressing those who accept the existence of both providence and God, but set providence over God to the point that they'll argue that there is no point in prayer because God has already decided what He's going do anyways. So, we should just get over asking and accept what comes our way.

Of course, we moderns may be surprised at seeing evidence of such a position this yearly in the life of the Church. Normally, we would identify this position with some distortions of Calvinism that we've seen from time to time. While John Calvin didn't hold such a preposterous position, the concept of double predestination can present a theological bind which can be misinterpreted into exactly this kind of denial of the efficacy of prayer. There are people who think about prayer and wonder why bother?

Origen's answer is similarly familiar. He answers the argument by affirming the importance of free will without, necessarily, denying providence. His answer is to affirm that the 'rational' soul of the human has free will, but that God, being omniscient, has foreknowledge of all our free will decisions. Using this foreknowledge, he arranges these decisions in order to build up his ordering of the world. In a sense, what he's saying is that we all have free will, but God, because of his foreknowledge, already knows how to arrange things to the good of His Kingdom. In that sense, His foreknowledge is not the cause of action, but the response to it.

The impact on prayer is that, according to Origen, God already knows in what spirit we pray before we do. If we prayer 'foolishly' or perhaps, better, selfishly, God will disregard that prayer. He will not, in a sense, decide to use it in his ordering of the Kingdom. Similarly, if he prays wisely (that is, with a view to the good of others or of the Kingdom), God will listen to that prayer and use it to build up his ordering of the world.

Now, as a theological answer, this still feels incomplete, but, strictly speaking, my concern in this series isn't so much the theological details (this is, after all, only part way through Origen's discussion of prayer), but rather on how it relates to the real practice of prayer. It is on that level that I want to continue our discussion.

What Origen is setting out here is one of the several obstacles to prayer which is, I think, why it seems as alive an issue today as it did in the third century A.D. We humans have an amazing capacity to find reasons to distance God from us and this is yet another example.

To be very honest, I find this particular obstacle a tempting one. I struggle with a concept of a remote God who doesn't really intervene in the world around me, so prayer does sometimes seem a futile endeavor. Early on, in my vaguely theist days, I was very much tempted by the classic deist image of the "Great Watchmaker' who sets into motion this clockwork universe and stands back to watch it go. Here God is rational, coolly uninvolved with absolutely no stake in what goes on in this universe. His creation of the world was merely an act of skill and superior knowledge. This is not a God to worship or to prayer to. This is a God whose handiwork we can admire, but nothing more. For a long time, this was the God I recognized.

What is more, I can see why I held this concept of God. I wasn't really ready to dismiss God altogether because I think I did have a sense of this universe hanging together rather too coherently to be an accident. This was a belief in providence of a kind. Yet, I couldn't really see how God could be personal or involved in the world-much less me. And, I have to admit, that this deistic God was much more convenient- He didn't tell me what to do or how to be and whatever I did either didn't matter in the grand scheme of thing or was the way He made it to be. That is a real lift of responsibility and is alluring, if only from that point of view.

I also found out I was wrong. God has worked in my life in very particular ways and in ways that convince me not only that God cares about this messed up world, but that he is working to redeem it- and me- as we speak. God does have an annoying way of breaking into one's life when one least expects it and thank God he does. I know all too well how well I do when I try to take control of my life without God, without prayer. And it isn't pretty.

What Origen here is offering us is a way out of this particular objection to prayer. In that sense, his theology matters, even with the odd bit about the sun and stars having a will (testimony to ancient scientific and philosophical assumptions, but not particularly germane to our discussions here). Yet, the spiritual trap implied in this objection to prayer remains ever-present.

Peace,
Phil

Patristic Carnival XIII is up!

Tim has put up Patristic Carnival XIII. It was a bumper month in Patristic land and Tim has worked very hard to get the whole plethora of blog entries. Enjoy!

Peace,
Phil