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

Sulpicius Severus, Life of St. Martin 20

When I was getting ready to do this post, I went to check where I had left off in the adventures of Life of St. Martin and was surprised (and not surprised) to find that I haven't translated anything since late March. So, to pick up the thread, we've finished a section dealing with two imperial officials and the miracles associated with them. Today, we continue with St. Martin's encounter with the temporarily successful usurper, Maximus.

Translation:

(1) So that I may add less important matters to such important ones- although as is nature of our times in which all things are now perverted and corrupted, it is almost extraordinary that priestly constancy did not yield to royal flattery-when many bishops from different parts of the world had come to meet the emperor Maximus, a man of fierce character, who had been raised up by victory in civil wars and the foul flattery of all around the emperor was noticed and priestly dignity subjected by the degenerate inconstancy of royal clientele, in Martin alone did apostolic authority remain. (2) For, if it was necessary for him to petition the king for someone, he gave orders rather than asking. Although he was asked often as a guest, he refused, saying that he could not share the table of one who, out of two emperors, drove out one from their realm and the other from his life. (3) Later, when Maximus claimed that he did not take up power by his own will, but to defend with arms the needs of the realm imposed on him by the soldiers with divine approval and that it seemed no other will than the will of God in whose will victory was so incredible an event and none of his adversaries fell unless in battle, at length, Martin, overcome by reason or by prayers, came to a feast. The emperor rejoiced in an astonishing way because he gained his point. (4) Guests were present just as if they were called to a festival, the most important and illustrious men, the prefect and consul, Euodius, a man whom there was never any more just, and two companions who who held the utmost power: the brother and the uncle of the king. In the middle, a priest of Martin reclined among them, he himself had sat in a little chair placed next to the king. (5) At nearly the middle of the feast, as is the custom, the waiter offered a wine cup to the king. The king ordered it be given instead to the holy bishop, waiting on and courting him so that he might take the cup up from Martin's right hand. (6). But when Martin drank, he handed over the cup to his own priest, thinking, of course, that no one was more worthy to drink first after himself nor would it be fair if he prefered either the king himself or those who were nearest to the king. (7)This deed, the emperor and all those then present admired so that this very thing in which they were snubbed pleased them. It was very celebrated through the whole palace that Martin did at the king's dinner what none of the bishops did not do at the feasts of lesser judges. (8) Martin predicted long before what would happen to Maximus that, if he should go to Italy where he desired to go, waging war against Valentinian the empeor, he would know that he will the victor in the first attack, but, after a short time, he would die. (9) Indeed, we saw it happened in this way. For on Maximus' first approach, Valentinian turned to flight. Then, after almost a year, with his strength restored, he killed Maximus captured in the walls of Aquileia.

Commentary

This passage is an interesting passage to historians in several ways. Any time that a philosopher or 'holy man' encounters an emperor, historians sit up and take notice because they know that there will be a clash of values or ideology which will unpack both imperial ideology and resistance to it. Yet, in the context of St. Martin's life, I want to highlight four features.

First, it is striking that Sulpicius makes every effort to downplay the importance of this encounter. He starts with a comment about adding less important things into the previous important one. Remember that Sulpicius has been talking about the miracles of St. Martin, so it looks like he is saying that the really important story are these miracles which, after all, are a demonstration of God's power through St. Martin. In turning to Martin's relations with Maximus, Sulpicius seems to be saying that the area of imperial politics dims in importance to these miracles. This is an example of the inversion of values which Christianity, at least, in its ideal sense tried to impose. This has been criticized as creating people who are 'too heavenly minded to be of earthly use', but I think this a little unfair. Needless to say, politics are important in the here and now, but, really, how important are they in the longer term that we Christians assume in affirming resurrection and eternal life.

Mind you, a less charitable critic might suggest that there is another reason why Sulpicius might be trying to minimize the importance of this incident. Magnus Maximus was, after all, a usurper, so even St. Martin's reluctant support might be considered as disloyalty to the surviving member of the Valentinian dynasty, Valentinian II. Perhaps Sulpicius is minimizing this episode and emphasizing Martin's effrontery to Maximus as a way to rehabilitate Martin's loyalty to Valentinian II. Perhaps. Yet, we have to remember that Maximus was an effective emperor in Gaul, Germany and Britain for five years, so it was only nature for Roman subjects in the region to accept that power, at least, de facto , if not de jure. This seems to be the sense that Sulpicius is presenting St. Martin's dealings with Maximus in conscious opposition to the actions of other, perhaps more worldy, bishops in the region, who saw a chance for imperial largess in backing Maximus.

Second, this passage is interesting in setting out what looks suspiciously the imperial apologia of Maximus for his actions against the emperors Gratian and Valentinian II. As in other sources, Maximus appears as a reluctant emperor, who was acclaimed by his own troops against his will. Having a keen sense of self-preservation, he seems to have gone along with it, but was as surprised as anyone when he defeated and killed the legitimate emperor, Gratian. Yet, the emphasis that these transactions were approved by God suggests that Maximus came to believe that he was supposed to have power. Given that Maximus was an unusually able usurper, connected to Theodosius I's father and his surviving rival was Valentinian II was twelve yers old, one could sympathize with his assumptions.

Third, St. Martin's dinner encounter with Maximus belongs to a literary commonplace in which the 'holy man' encounters the emperor or leading man. Common to this storyline, the 'holy man' has a tendency to insult the emperor and disregard his importance in the world as a salutary lesson in humility. Here St. Martin does just that, first in resisting Maximus' invitation so assiduously and, then, in the snub he gives Maximus around the handing of the cup. The gesture to hand the cup to the most important person at the banquet is, as Sulpicius indicates, a traditional one, so the meaning of handing off the cup to St. Martin would not be lost on anyone. Clearly, Maximus both wanted to honour the 'holy man' and wanted to be honoured by him, when St. Martin, presumably, returned the favour. He didn't, but rather passed the cup to a priest, suggesting that, in St. Martin's mind, the true hierarchy started with the ecclesiastical one and, only then, did the secular one come in. It is also striking that the snub only proved the status and importance of St. Martin. This is also common to this storyline when the emperor implies that the snub was appropriate. Of course, this is the sense of the storyline that the mighty were not so mighty after all, when compared to the spiritual power of the 'holy man'. Given Maximus' emphasis on the approval of God of his emperorship, he would be especially sensitive to the teachings of a 'holy man'.

In a sense, the model of St. Martin' behavior in this episode, however, should not be reduced to merely the stock 'holy man', who could be pagan or Christian or whatever. As with other similar incidents, I think that the model here is intended to be prophetic in that St. Martin confronts the political powers of the day with the kind of spiritual power which forces them to take notice and, for once, perhaps, respond with humility.

Lastly, we have St. Martin's prediction of Maximus' future demise. On one level, this is yet another demonstration of St. Martin' prophetic power; the ability to foresee the future. Now, for sceptical moderns, of course, we could presume that St. Martin had already figured out that dynastic loyalty to the Valentinian dynasty was was still strong and that the Emperor Theodosius II in the Eastern Empire had as much reason to back Valentinian II because his own infant son was his co-Emperor. Yet, I think that is retrojecting what we already know about what did happen. After all, Maximus did drive Valentinian II out of Italy and looked like he won the West completely, Who really knew that Theodosius would back Valentinian II against his father's protege and comrade? It could have gone either way and, given that it was Theodosius' intervention which proved decisive, how would St. Martin be so sure?

Of course, that is a moot point, if we presume that this report is merely Sulpicius building up Martin's reputation by introducing a 'fictional' story about this prediction. There is, really, no way of knowing whether this is a fictional story or not. Nor is that, precisely, the point. The problem that we are facing in this prediction is the same problem we've found throughout the miracle stories: a clash of worldviews which sees the 'scholarly' world looking to diminish the 'divine' and 'miraculous' elements of the story vs a Christian worldview which thinks the divine and miraculous may have happened. I don't know how we can mediate between these views, so I can only declare myself as willing to consider that the divine and miraculous can and could happen. If that means that some of my readers will dismiss what I have to say from here on, that is the way it going to have be then.

Peace,
Phil

Patristic Carnival XIII: Call for Submssions

Welcome to lucky Patristic Carnival XIII. This month, Tim Trautman over at the God Fearin' Forum will be hosting the Carnival.

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 June 30th and the postings will be up by the week of July 1st. .

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

Peace,
Phil

Origen, On Prayer 3-4

It has been awhile since I've had a chance to continue my series on Origen's On Prayer, but work in May and June has been very busy. Things are starting (just starting) to wind down, so I thought it a good time to get back to work. The passage I'm discussing is here . My own references continue to be from the St. Vladimir edition. The other parts of this series includes an introduction, parts one and two.

This passage is a bit of a hard entry to write on because it presents two problems to someone who is trying to consider its spiritual dimensions. First, in this passage, Origen indulges his own predilections by analysing the Greek words used for prayer and their meanings. His method is, of course, deeply philological: searching out the words in Scripture and discussing their usage in significant passages. Origen is the consummate intellectual and this passage, of course, appeals very much to the intellect. It is a useful passage to see how Origen goes about his scriptural exegesis, but, if one already has a tendency towards over-intellectualization, one could get bogged down in the nuts and bolts and not consider what Origen is trying to teach here.

Second, much of the discussion is centred on the word euche to which, in his philological analysis, Origen gives two basic meanings: intercession and the vow. His argument that the primary meaning is that of a vow- defined in Origen as a a promise to do something if God should do something else for them- is, I think, a bit of a stumbling block for modern readers. While ancient writers like Origen didn't really have a problem with the concept, we moderns do. All to often, we react to the idea of this kind of prayer as primitive or bargaining, so we tend not view it as really 'legitimate'. I don't know how many times I hear that we can't do this kind of 'bargaining' because it is tantamount to forcing God to do what we want or that this is simple wish fulfillment. It is, sometimes, easier to dismiss these passages where a vow is given, rather than take them seriously.

Yet, the thing about this kind of prayer is that it presumes a relationship. That is, this isn't a dictate given by us to God or vice versa, but rather it is something in which God freely participates. If we understand it this way, Jacob's vow on the road to Paddam Aram (to take the first example Origen presents) that God keep him safe and Jacob would take him as his God is an affirmation of a relationship which God initiated. It follows Jacob's vision of the ladder in which God promises to keep Jacob safe. Jacob's vow is an answer to this experience of grace and of the relationship which God initiated.

I wonder if this relational dimension to prayer isn't what we are missing by dismissing this idea of the vow. I'm not sure I've quite overcome my resistance to the idea nor am I sure that I would say all vows of this type are free from attempted manipulation of God. That is the risk we take in all relationships- human and divine. Yet, I wonder if we shouldn't reconsider this resistance. Perhaps this is what Origen can teach us.

Peace,
Phil

Patristics Carnival XII- May, 2008

I'm very late with this again, but that seems to be my life right now. I hope you enjoy this busy month.

Front Gate: Introductions to the Fathers

No entries here this month.

The Midway: Articles on the Fathers

Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers reports on Pope Benedict's Wednesday talk on Pseudo-Dionysius and on Romanus, discusses politicians, bad jokes and the Arian (or is it Aryan) controversy,

Richard Anderson on the dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos theophilos blog features a discussion of the Septuagint, starting with an introduction, continuing with a discussion of the importance of the Septuagint to both the biblical writers and the Fathers, and discusses the implications of this use of the Septuagint.

Jeff Miller on the livinghesed blog, inspired by Christopher Hall's Learning Theology with the Church Fathers , considers what we can learn from the Arian controversy, how the Pelagian controversy can be seen today, compares St. John Crysosthom with Tony Robbins and muses on St. Ireneaus' method of biblical interpretation.

mdestes on the Philos and Storge blog discusses the Eucharist in the Ante-Nicene period.

admin on The Biblical Arch Seminary blog considers the formation of the Christian canon.

Linus Chua on his blog discusses monasticism and its good and bad features.

Jeffrey Norris on the Norris blog features an essay on heresy in the Pre-Nicene church.

T. Lewis on the Source Theory blog muses over the usefulness of patristic citations of the Gospel of Matthew for source criticism of that gospel.

Wei-Hsien Wan on the Torn Notebook blog discusses the place of the Fathers in the church as analyzed by Pope Benedict (the former cardinal, Ratzinger) in part one, part two and part three. I'm really looking forward to actually reading these (as opposed to the skim I've been doing to get this carnival out)

Taylor Marshall on the Canterbury Tales blog features a discussion of the patristic evidence for the sign of the cross.

R.E. Aguirre on the regula-fidei blog discusses Michael Hortan's take on Scripture and Tradition.

zdbu on the Scribblings blog starts a series on the Apostles Creed with part one, part two, part three and part four. More parts are to come.

Shaun Reeves on the Within the Garden blog discusses how patristics shaped his understanding of his own faith.

Paenitit on the Paenitentia blog features a discussion of the themes in St. Clement's First Letter to the Corinthians.

Paul Gregory Alms on the incarnatus est blog points out a close parallel between Matthew 7, 15 and Didache, 11.

Tim Trautman on the God Fearin' Forum discusses ecclesiology and the early creeds, muses on the links of Pentacost, the papacy and Tertullian, dismisses theories that the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch were forged, discusses Hegisippus and the Levitical nature of priests, and declares Calvinism refuted by Origen.

Roger Pierce on Thoughts on Antiquity gives an update of the translation of Eusebius' Quaestiones in parts eleven.

The Marketplace: Book Reviews

Seumas Jeltzz Macdonald on the Subversive Compliance blog favourably reviews D.H. William's book, Evangelicals and Tradition

Craig Carter on the Politics of the Cross blog features an extensive review of Michael Hanby's Augustine and Modernity.

Father Tim Finigan on the hermeneutic of continuity blog reviews Father Thomas Crean, The Mass and the Saints.

Noah Peterson on the Books for Christians gives a short review of Tomas Spindik's Drinking from the Hidden Fountain: A Patristic Breviary

R.E. Aguirre on the regula-fidei blog reviews Nick Needham's Justification in the Early Church Fathers.

Dr. Karl Moller on the Biblical Studies Notebook reviews the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series from IVP press.

On this blog, I review Scott Hahn's and Mike Aquilina's Living the Mysteries.

Exhibition Place: Biographies of the Fathers.

cd on the Discover the Faith blog discusses St. Ignatius of Antioch in part one, part two and part three.

The Catholic Internet Mission blog features a biography of St. John Damascene.

The Rodeo: Patristic catenae

Bob Mitchell on the Shofar Ministries websites challenges pre-trib rapture with a patristic catena.

The Religious Stuff blog features a catena on the Trinity in the Church Fathers.

The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations

No entries this month.

The Apocryphal Aisle: Christian Apocrypha

April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospels blog features a discussion on terminology for the pluralism of the Early Church and a reprise and another and finally a discussion of the need for the terms.

James Gibson on the Sanctus blog features a discussion of further revelations about the Gospel of Judas edition from National Geographic.

Well, that is it. I hope you enjoy the offerings this month. As usual, if you can host either next month or later this year, let me know.

Peace,
Phil