Two Years at hyperekperissou

On Tuesday last, hyperekperissou reached its two year mark. So, to honour that anniversary and because this blog (not to mention my own life) has changed substantially over the last couple of years, I thought a reprised introduction is in order. The first introduction is here.

Who am I?

Well, let's start with the family. I was born in Toronto, Ontario, but spent most of my childhood/youth in London, Ontario. I went to a fairly academic high school, got into university and enjoyed it so much that I spent 15 years in one university or the other. Four completed degrees later (I did start a PhD., but didn't finish), I found my vocation as a a high school teacher of Latin and Classical Studies (of all things!). If you'd told me even ten years ago that that would be what I would do with my life, I would have laughed in your face. But here we are.

I'm married to Elin and we have a 14 month old son, Ian. My wife and I met while living at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto. I was working on my PhD in Classics. My wife was working on an MA in Theology. We married in 2001.

My interests include, of course, patristics, Classics, Latin and Greek linguistics, Byzantine history, cooking, movies and spending time with my family. Yes, I'm a geek. I'm proud and not tired (sorry, Arlo Guthrie reference).

Why hyperekperissou?

I quote my original introduction:

This is a sneaky reference to Ephesians 3, 21 and used commonly as a doxology at the end of the Eucharist: "Glory to God whose power, working in us, can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine..." (Book of Alternative Services=BAS). The bits in italics are the part which express hyperekperissou (hard working word, isn't it?). I wanted it as a title partly because it is an expression of God's abounding grace offered to the world through Jesus Christ, but also because this verse has always had special meaning to my wife and me because we have both seen it in our own lives. In fact, we saw it as so important that we inscribed it on our wedding bands.

I should also add that, embarrassingly, I wrongly transcribed hyperekperissou as my URL and now I'm afraid to change it because it would screw up people's links to this blog. Now that that admission has been made, let's move on.

The Evolution of hyperekperissou

I have to admit that I had no idea what kind of blog I was intending to do when I started. I'm not sure anybody who starts blogging ever really does. If he/she does, that certainly changes very quickly. My blogging experience, however, seemed to be a natural outgrowth of my contributions to various discussion boards on the net, so I thought it made sense to give myself a venue in which to write reflections on faith, theology and the Anglican Church.

What I found was that I was writing an inordinate amount on the Anglican Church morass. Now, don't get me wrong. There is a flourishing Anglican blogsphere with some fine writers on both sides. Yet, despite donning my asbestos underwear, I discovered that I had very little stomach to be a polemicist and as reasoned dialogue seemed (and seems) impossible, I chose not to devote my time and energy to those issues. At least, on this blog.

That was around June, 2006. Around that time, I stumbled across Mike Aquilina's The Way of the Fathers blog and discovered a whole new (and not particularly populated) part of blogsphere- patristiblogging. This fit with my major intellectual interest, patristics, and I felt that it gave me more opportunities to make positive contributions to people's lives. I honestly think that the Fathers should be read more, not as a kind of intellectual fetish, but as a way to understand how we Christians came to make the decisions about such things as the canon, the Trinity, etc., which characterize orthodox Christianity. If this blog offers a glimmer of light on how that process worked, then it has served its purpose.

That is why I've given so much attention to Patristic Carnivals (which started in December 2006) and book reviews. I'm encouraged, incidentally, by the reception of the Patristic Carnival and by the increase of patristic entries out there. I honestly think this is the greatest contribution I've made in the last two years.

Whither hyperekperissou?

So, the only question remaining is where I am I going in the future with the blog. I think the patristics emphasis stays, but here is where I expect to go.

1. Patristics Carnivals will continue, but I think the time has come to build a permanent page for the rules/regulations. This is a priority on the to-do list, but life and family are first priority, so it may be a while.

2. I'm still looking for hosts for the Patristics Carnival. I think it would be good on several fronts to take myself out of always doing the Patristics Carnival. If you are interested in hosting, let me know. I really do intend to start e-mailing people to solicit aid soon, but busyness has prevented me in the last few months.

3. Keeping up the book reviews as much as I can. Given a limited book buying budget, I do have to rely on the University of Toronto library system, so it takes me awhile to get to things. If you think I should be reviewing something, drop me a line!

3. I think I need to get back to reflections which were a feature in the early months. These reflections could be inspired by patristic texts, but need not be. I think a more personal touch would be nice from time to time on this blog (thus this introduction).

4. Any other suggestions?

Gratitude

I would be remiss if I ended this entry without thanking my readers and supporters for their encouragement over the years. Particularly, I want to thank:

My wife for putting up with my weekly blog time and for her suggestions on individual blog entries.

Jim, my first and constant reader, for his encouragement, even when I shifted away from his areas of expertise. Jim and I have been arguing about various things for years, so I'm happy to have transferred our discussions to this venue as well.

Mike and Kevin for their advice in the early days of my shift to patristiblogging.

Tim, Danny and everyone with whom I discuss, debate and dispute. Thanks for keeping our discussions productive and civil.


Peace,
Phil

Evangelicals and the Early Church

I don't normally cite articles outside the Carnival, but I think this particular article, posted by Don Bryant at From My Heart, Out of My Mind deserves reading for those who are trying to puzzle out the evangelical move to the Fathers. Whether your are an evangelical or a curious Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, this is well worth reading.

Peace,
Phil

Book Review: Bryan M. Litfin, Getting to Know the Church Fathers. An Evangelical Introduction.

In what seems an ongoing series, I decided to hunt down the newest entry in Protestant introductions to the Church Fathers: Bryan Litfin`s Getting to know the Church Fathers from Brazos Press. I was particularly intrigued by this volume because of the reviews I found in blogsphere during the November Patristics Carnival.

The starting point with this book, I think, is to consider where it is coming from. It is part of the evangelical resurgence in interest about the Church Fathers. This movement is a source of perplexity among many Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox readers, I recognize, because, except for some notable converts, most of these writers remain evangelical and Protestant, while emphasizing the importance of both the Fathers and catholicity in their theology. This perplexity is understandible, of course, because of the aversion that many Protestants, especially those of the free church persuasion (Baptists, Mennonites, non-denominations evangelicals of all varieties), have to reading anything earlier than the Reformers (and, even then, one has to be careful of the magisterial ones). Never mind, that the early Reformers were as ready to scrape about the Fathers and the early Church as any Roman Catholic. Never mind that Protestantism remains very Augustinian in its theology, even if in a different way that Roman Catholics (this being something which drives Eastern Orthodox writers to despair).

I think the important way to review this Protestant patristic revival is that it is often intended as a way to deal with the shortcomings of the free church tradition. Most notably, the Fathers are frequently employed as a prophelactic against hte Protestant disease: splitting at the drop of a hat. Unfortunately, when the first Reformers split from the Roman Catholic Church, they opened up a new precedent in allowing for the possibility of having to leave a church with which one disagrees. This has lead to a steady fragmentation of Protestantism; a fragmentation which has only accelerated in the last century. What bringing in the Fathers does is to inject a dose of catholic ecclesiology which, it is hoped, may well get people to stick with their churches and work their problems out, rather than splitting off in a huff. As an Anglican catholic, I can only applaud that approach.

Litfin's volume fits into this revival, but in a peculiar place. One of the features of many of the introdutions I've read (D.H. William's Retrieving Tradition or Christopher Hall's Reading Scripture With the Church Fathers (and its companion volume, Learning Theology with the Church Fathers) is that these volumes are intended for educated laymen, pastors and theologians. Litfin's audience, I think, is broader. As my wife suggested (without disrespect, I note), Litfin is trying for more of a "Dummies Guide to the Fathers" approach. This means an accessible and sometimes folksy writing style (which masks good content, I note) and an assumption that the audience doesn't know anything. This makes it a splendid introductory volume for the evangelical layman to the Fathers.

Litfin structures his book on the biographies of ten Fathers (well, nine Fathers, one Mother): Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Ireneaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, Perpetua, Origen, Athanasius, John Chrysosthom, Augustine and Cyril of Alexandria. He gives a biography and a discussion of their theology in light of their contribution. He ends each section with a passage from each author and reflections questions. This is, clearly, a book meant to be studied in church book studies and with a Bible close at hand.

Litfin's introduction deals with the perennial issue of why Protestants should want to read the Fathers: the Fathers aren't Biblical, they are Roman Catholics, they represent the fall of Christianity. He also deals with whether they are relevant. All of these, of course, are the perennial issues for Protestants (and, to a lesser degree, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox), but Litfin deals with them well. He does have a tendency to over-defend the Fathers, especially on the issue of allegory and Constantinianism. But, then, I'm not exactly know for my sympathy to either patristic theme.

Still, this is an excellent introduction to the Fathers and deserves to be taken seriously. If you are looking for a book to introduce the Fathers in an evangelical setting, this one is an excellent choice.

Peace,
Phil

Announcing Patristics Carnival IX

This month's Carnival will be hosted by Tim Trautman over at God Fearin' Forum.

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

The last day of submission will be February 29th and the postings will be up later by the week of March 3rd. .

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

Feb. 11th Revision: It seems I can't count. This IS Patristics Carnival IX!

Peace,
Phil

Patristics Carnival VIII- January, 2008

February 11th edit: This is actually Patristics Carnival Eight, so I've corrected the header and a spelling error or two.

Welcome to the eighth incarnation of the Patristic Carnival. It has been rather a busy month, so I hope you enjoy the offerings.

New Attractions:

Two excellent new blogs have emerged in the patristiblogging section of blogsphere. Ora et labora, an Eastern Orthodox newcomer, and Archaic Christianity by Eric Sowell. Welcome aboard!

Front Gate: Introductions to the Fathers

Earthpages.ca offers a new entry on the Church Fathers. It is brief, but accurate.

rtjones on the Communal Feast blog puts a plug in for patristics.

The Midway: Articles on the Fathers

Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers blog discusses how the Fathers would view our attitude to the unborn today and posts a translation of Pope Benedict's audience on St. Augustine.

sean on The Higher Ground blog features a discussion about the evolution of the Creeds. I'm not entirely sure where they're going with it, but they're not necessarily fans of the Trinitarian understanding of orthodox Christianity.

Steve on Triablogue discusses the (legendary) Alexandrian (Old Testament) canon, as part of an ongoing discussion on the topic.

Wyman Richardson on the Walking Together blog features summaries of patristic works including the letter of St. Clement to the Corinthians, St. Ignatius' letters to the Philippians, Ephesians, Magnesians, Trailians, the Romans, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, The Rodeo: Patristic catenae and the Letter to Diognetus. Whew, that is a lot of summarizing! These summaries are written from an evangelial (Baptist) point of view and are excellent work!

Eric Sowell on the Archaic Christianity blog reflects St. Ignatius' Letter to the Ephesians in three parts (one, two, three)

New patristiblogger, Felix Culpa, on the Ora et Labora blog has a good start with several patristic posts including a summary of the seven ecumenical councils a very clear and detailed introduction to patristic exegesis, translation tips for the prayer of Ephrem and considers contemplation and balance in light of Sts. Athanasius and Cyril.

Ian on the Ruminations by the Lake blog posts his thesis proposal on Augustine's letter to Sixtus and the monks at Hadramentum.

Benedict Seraphim on the This Is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis blog reflects on St. Gregory Palamas' Dialogue VI. Added Feb. 5: It seems I messed up this reference and mis-attributed this entry to St. Gregory the Great (who, also, I think, had Dialogues.

Derek on the star light blog discusses St. Maximus' treatment of the hardening of the Pharoah's heart in Exodus.
Rob Bradshaw on the Earlychurch.org blog posts a series of PDF scholarly articles on the soteriology in Alexandria, Clement Ignatius and Hermas, Victorinus on Revelation, the canon of Scripture, signs and wonders in the early catholic church, St. Augustine and creation, St. Augustine, Origen and allegory, patristic views of Hell, a PhD. thesis on patristic eschatology and a book on Tertullian by Gerald Bray now online.

Weekend Fisher on the Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength blog reflects on the series of books trying to emphasize the pagan origin of Christianity.

Philip Harland on the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean blog had an excellent two articles on Marcion dealing with ethnographic stereotypes of Marcion and Marcion's concept of God.

Roger Pearse on the Thoughts on Antiquity blog muses over his project of translating Eusebius of Caesarea and the difficulty of knowing when scholarly brands have been applied.

Added Feb 5: Danny Garland from the Irish-Catholic and Dangerous blog had a paper on the Church Fathers' Marian interpretation of the Old Testament. Congrats on the publication, Danny!

Exhibition Place: Biographies of the Fathers

The Friar on the Reason and Revelation blog features an excellent biography of St. Gregory of Nazianzus. and St. Cyril and Athanasius.


The Marketplace: Book Reviews

reformedreader on The Reformed Reader offers a few reflections on St. Cyril's commentary on John.

Ben Arbour on the Believing Jesus blog features a book review of Christopher Hall's Reading Scripture through the Church Fathers (which was a tremendously influential book for me, since it had started me off in the wonderful world of patristics.)

Matthew Burgess on the Confessions of Biblical Junkie blog passes on an announcement from Fortress about a new collection of essays on St. Justin Martyr.

On this blog, I review D.H. William's Evangelicals and Tradition.

The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations

On this blog, I continue my translation series on Sulpicius Severus' Life of St. Martin 17.

The Apocryphal Aisle: Christian Apocrypha

April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospel blog features a series of responses to Marvin Meyer on the Thirteenth Daimon in the Gospel of Judas (one, two, three, four, four.one, four.two, five, six, seven)

I hope you enjoy these entries! Keep an eye out for Patristics Carnival IX at a to-be-announced location.

Peace,
Phil

Sulpicius Severus, Life of St. Martin 17

Here is the latest installment of our St. Martin story.

Translation:

At the same time, the slave of a certain proconsul, Taetradius, was seized by a demon and was tortured in a painful way. Therefore, when Martin was asked to lay hands on him, he ordered the slave to be brought to him, but in no way could the spirit be brought from the cell where he was. He savaged those who came with raging teeth. (2) Then, Taetradius fell prostrate around the knees of the blessed man, begging that Martin himself should descend to that cell where the demon-possessed man was held. Martin refused to enter the house of an impious pagan. (3) For Taetradius, at that time, was entangled and held by pagan error. Therefore, Taetradius swore that, if the demon was taken away from the boy, he would become a Christian. (4) Then, Martin, after laying hands on the boy, cast the spirit from him. When he saw this, Taetradius believed in the Lord Jesus. Immediately, he was made a catechumen and not long after he was baptized. He always honoured Martin with astonishing affection as the author of his salvation.

(5) At the same time, in the same town, the head of a certain household entered and, hesitating on the threshold, said he had seen a horrible demon in the atrium of the house, When Martin ordered it to leave, a certain person who was staying in the interior part of the house seized the head of the household and the wretch began to rage with his teeth and tear at anyone who was opposite him. With the house disturbed, the family thrown into confusion and people turning in flight, Martin placed himself opposite the raging man. First, he ordered him to stand. (6) When the man ground his teeth and threatened to bite him with a gaping mouth, Martin brought his fingers into his mouth. "If you are able," he said, "devour them." (7) As if he received glowing iron in his gullet, the man, drawing his teeth far back, avoided touching the fingers of the blessed man. When the spirit was forced to flee from the besieged body through punishments and tortures (not was it permitted for it to leave through the mouth), it was discharged through a flux of the stomach, leaving foul remains.

Commentary:

Here we return to the healings of St. Martin.

The first of the cures, I think, are meant to echo some of Jesus' cures of demoniacs. In particular, I think there is an echo of the centurion's slave in Matthew 8,5-13 and Luke 1-10 in which the slave of an outright pagan (and Roman, hence, oppressor!) is healed by Jesus as well as the cure of the Canaanite woman's daughter (Matthew 15, 21-28 and Mark, 7, 24-30) whom Jesus cured, albeit reluctantly and in response to the faith of the Canaanite woman.

Clearly, the fit is not perfect with either story. The centurion refuses to allow Jesus to enter his house because it was not worthy for him, a Jew, to enter a Gentile house. Taetatradius has no such qualms and begs Martin to come into his house, despite the fact that he, Taetradius, wasn't even a Christian. The reluctance to enter is entirely Martin's, so it casts a rather different colour to the story.

Similarly, the fact that Jesus hesistated from entering the Canaanite woman's house matches well with Martin's hesitation to enter Taetradius' house. Yet, Jesus was convinced to do the healing because of the woman's faith in him, so he relented from his opposition. Martin is only convinced by Taetradius' very conditional vow to become a Christian, if Martin could cure his slave. This kind of bargaining is very much in line with pagan practice, although it looks like Taetradius seized his faith wtih both hands, once he accepted it. The final line of the episode, I think, is meant to prevent us from thinking of this conversion as a conversion of convenience.

The second episode, I don't think, has any direct Scriptural resonance. The calm shown by Martin before the raging demon-possessed man is parallel to Jesus' cool-headedness and authority in dealing with even the most raging demon-possessed people. It is, also, entirely consistent with his calm in dealing with raging pagans. Secure in God's protection, Martin stands up to the demons and wins. Of course, it is understood that this is God's victory, not Martin's, but the calm is a sign that Martin isn't just another wonder-worker (whether Christian or pagan, these were a dime a dozen at the time), but an outright holy man.

Peace,
Phil

Patristics Carnival VIII- Call for Submissions

Well, it is time for another Patristics Carnival--the eighth in the series. I'm hosting again.

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

The last day of submission will be January 30th and the postings will be up later by the week of February 8. .

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

Peace,
Phil

The Askesis of Blogging

This post is a bit of a departure from my normal posts, but I have been thinking a bit about the subject of blogging over the last few weeks and, to some degree, this kind of reflective navel-gazing is de rigour in blogging circles. So, I thought this could be the time.

Truthfully, I decided to write on this topic this week because of an exchange I was having with another blog which got rather heated on my side, largely because aspects of a post got up my left-nostril (one of my expressions for being annoyed-I don't know why it is important that it is the left nostril, so don't ask). Now, this kind of little explosion is not uncommon in blogsphere and, as explosions go, it was kind of small. It isn't like it sparked blog and counter-blog entries for weeks on end or made the news. Still, it is sometimes these small explosions which reveal our actual practice as bloggers, not our sometimes fulsome ideals in posts such as this.

The questions raised by this contre-temps are intensified, I think, by the fact that I am a Christian and I'm trying to write in a way that is consistent to my faith, whether here or in the comments on other blogs. One of the things that I firmly believe is that we are called to find and practice the presence of God in all that we do day to day (a la Brother Lawrence), even in this world of code and word which we call blogsphere. In that sense, like many other tasks we spend our time on, blogging can (and should) become an askesis for us (a spiritual discipline) which is designed to help us deepen our faith by finding God in where we are. Since we are dealing with real-live people in blogsphere (no matter how much the anonymity of the Internet seeks to hide it), we are constantly bumping against the two Great Commandments: having no God except God (our focus isn't to aggrandize ourselves, but to serve God) and loving our neighbour as ourselves (how do we interact with our fellow bloggers/commentators?).

So, what is the askesis of blogging? Certainly, they are a set of practices designed to bring us closer to God. Certainly, many of them come off as merely common sense or ethical. Don't mis-represent the truth. Don't get into ad hominem accusations. Don't give false witness. Those, I think are obvious enough not to provoke comment.

However, the real spiritual work, the real askesis, has to be found in the less certain, gray-areas of blogging. Am I taking the time to understand what someone is saying? How do I react to what I think is an unjust accusation? Am I charitable in my disagreements with people? Do I seek the truth, not my way, but God's way? Do I honestly love the person I'm agreeing with or do I just want to score a point? Am I just arguing for arguing sake?If I'm honest about these, I can't say that I'm always successful in them. I do post hastily and angrily without really listening to what someone is really saying, not what I think they're saying. I do treat some comments as attacks to be parried (if possibly, pre-emptively) rather than a person's honest thoughts. I do indulge in debating tactic to 'win' the argument without asking what God wants in this.

Still, an askesis taken on doesn't mean an instantaneous change in one's outlook or practice. The old monastics talk about askesis as a refining process in which the gold or silver is purified slowly and painstakingly from the dross. So, in the askesis of blogging, I can see and be grateful for my progress from my early days commenting on various bulletin boards (the ancestors to the blog). I am more careful about when I post and how. I am less inclined to indulge useless arguments, but find ways to break free of them graciously. I am starting to see that, as John Howard Yoder puts it, "Love of enemy must include love of the intellectual adversary, including intellectual respect for the holders of positions one must in conscience reject" and act accordingly. Like any askesis, I am being taught to leave my desire to win and be seen as smarter than my opponents where they belong; in the ditch along the side of the road.

I'm not there yet, but, by God's grace, there is progress. Perhaps with my prayers and yours as well, I will get there. God willing.

Peace,
Phil

Book Review: D.H. Williams, Evangelicals and Tradition

Over the holidays, I finished D.H. Williams' Evangelicals and Tradition; a companion volume to Ronald Heine's book on the Fathers and the Old Testament which I reviewed back in November. I was anxious to get my hands on Williams' book, largely because Williams in the series editor for the Evangelical Ressourcement series from Baker Academic. So, I was interested to see Williams' vision of how the Fathers connect with an evangelical theological stance.

What I found was not much that was new to me, especially because I've been reading evangelical theologians like D.H. Williams for seven or eight years or so. As a self-described catholic evangelical, I agree with William's concerns about the Protestant dismissal of tradition and his belief that this entails a catastrophic failure in our Christian memory. Part of the reason that I remain an Anglican is that I firmly believe that Anglicanism retains that sense that catholicity is important, but also insists on the importance of the Protestant re-visioning of Christian faith. While Williams' aims at a more free church audience among evangelicals, I find much value in his call for ressourcement and wonder how it might be applied to Anglicanism whose nineteenth century resourcement (the Oxford Movement) has fizzled into a widespread taste for incense, candles and bells, but little concern with the theological/spiritual legacy of the Fathers and the Early Church.

Williams' aims for his project of recalling evangelicals to tradition, as expressed in the Series introduction, emphasize this focus on the free church tradition. He states.

"Series readers will see how (1) Scripture and early tradition were both necessary for the process of orthodox teaching, (2) there is a reciprocal relationship between theology and the life of the Church, (3) the liberty of the Spirit in a believer's life must be balanced with the continuity of the church in history and (4) the Protestant Reformation must be integrated within the larger and older picture of what it means to be catholic."

For those unacquainted with the free church tradition and controversies, several of these aims may seem odd. However, I think Williams is right to emphasize the connection of our life of faith with the continuity of the church with history. All too often Protestants have a tendency to dismiss anyone earlier than the Reformers (at best) as irrelevant (at best) or dangerous. Part of the reason for this lack of historical consciousness is a naive understanding of sola scriptura as meaning that the only interpretations that matter are the individual's. Williams rightly points out that the Reformers themselves vehemently disagreed with this take, but rather meant that Scripture was the final authority to which one must appeal, but that this appeal did not exclude other authorities such as tradition. Thus, as he suggests on p.96 (following John Wesley), the meaning of solus in this expression is primarily, not exclusively. In itself, this is a crucial point and, in this theological world of individualized exegesis, should be repeated often.

In the course of his discussion, Williams deals with the definitions of tradition, the 'canonical' quality of the early, especially apostolic, tradition, the link of Scripture and tradition and the Protestant tradition in light of the earlier traditions from the Fathers. There are, certainly, too many topics and good points made to enumerate here, but there are a couple which stand out in my mind.

First, Williams makes the valuable point that, among the Fathers, the authority of the books which would later become the Bible was not based on a assumption that they were canonical right away. Williams goes through the process of the development of the canon, but insists rightly that we really can't talk about canon much earlier than the fourth or fifth centuries. Rather, they focused on the apostlicity of these writings. That is, the Fathers firmly believed that certain gospels and letters reflected accurately the teachings of Jesus Christ as told by the apostles. This isn't a new interpretation, of course, but I think it is a valuable one because it undercuts both the naive 'divine fax-machine' model of Scriptural inspiration and the 'human document' model. The situation with the these writings was much more fluid that I think any of us really understand, but I think this insistence on the apostolic authority of certain writings is getting us close to understanding why these writings were quoted so often and why they eventually did coalesce into a recognized canon.

Second, Williams makes an important point that the Reformers were not so much trying to establish a new church, but rather top reclaim the catholic one that they felt had been marred by abuses. This means that their view of the past was that they were in continuity with the Christian past in ways that the even the Tridentine Roman Catholic vision could not be. This insistence on the continuity of the Protestant tradition to the early church has been and continues to be expressed in disputes on who is more in continuity with the early church; a dispute I find profoundly uninteresting (my answer is both and neither-the early church was that different). Yet, I think William's point is an important clue on how Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestants need to relate to the church of the Fathers: namely, that the early and patristic church represents a common heritage and one which we all must engage with.

As I end this review, I'm very conscious that I've barely scrapped the surface of this excellent book. For all its accessible style, helpful ideas run thick and fast in this book and I really must re-read it in the near future.

Peace,
Phil

Patristics Carnival VII

Here is the Patristic Carnival VII, featuring offerings from December, 2007. It was a busy month! Enjoy the offerings!

Front Gate: Introductions to the Fathers

Nothing this month.

The Midway: Articles on the Fathers

Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers blog features Pope Benedict's talks on John Chromatius, and St. Paulinus of Nola, , compares the episcopal combat styles of St. Nicolas of Myra (yes, that St. Nick!) and Pope Zephyrinus and prays for unity(I should have included this one in the Christian Reconciliation Carnival 10!) and reviews the senses of Christmas

As part of the Christian Reconciliation Carnival 10, Weekend Fisher on the Heart, Mind Soul and Strength blog muses over using the Church Fathers to de-bug Christianity.

First Apostle quotes St. Augustine on orthodoxy and muses over how Anglicans can work out what is orthodox.

Tim Trautman on The God Fearin' Forum ponders Clement of Alexandria and metrosexuals. The latter don't come off very well. Odd that.

Danny Garland on the Irish Catholic and Dangerous blog features a discussion of the development of the doctrine of papal infallability and an analysis of the necessity of patristic study for priests.

Roger Pierce on the Thoughts on Antiquity blog discusses publishing patristic or almost-patristic texts today.
Malcolm ZYZ on the From the Outside In blog discusses talking points between Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants about tradition

Scrammy on the Authentic blog posts a link to his paper on his answer to Christian hesitation about certainty.

Mike Rizzo on the Mystery of Truth and E=MC2 blog contempates the patristic conception of theology as system-restore button for Christians.

The Rodeo: Patristic catenae

Dave Armstrong on the Biblical Evidence for Catholicism blog defends St. Athanasius from being co-opted by Protestants with a catena of Athanasius' catholic statements.

Jody on the Jody's Stuff blog discovers that Irenaeus and the early Church Fathers were pre-trib.

MG on The Well of Questions blog begins to consider the Fathers and Theistic Arguments and moves on to Athanasius' contribution to the argument.

On this blog and as part of the Christian Reconciliation Carnival 10, I wrote on Protestants and Patristics.

Mike Olseon on the Pseudo-Polymath blog answers and critiques my above post.

Exhibition Place: Biographies of the Fathers

Peter Rival on the Utter Muttering blog features a biography of the patron saint of his blog, St. Ambrose.

The Marketplace: Book Reviews

Nothing in this category this month.

The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations

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

The Apocryphal Aisle: Christian Apocrypha

April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospels blog features an expansion of her discussion of the Gospel of Judas in the New York Times, offers a Christmas Gnostic shopping list, responds to Robert Eisenmann's suggestion that she is conservative and offers a retrospective on 2007

Merry Christmas

As I'm off to Winnipeg for the holidays, I wanted to wish all my readers a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I hope that all of you will spend a wonderful holiday with family and friends.

There will, of course, be a blogging hiatus for the holiday break until I get back. I'll be able to monitor the blog from the Paris on the Prairies, but I won't be writing anything notable. We'll be back next year with Patristics Carnival VII.

Christus natus est!

Peace,
Phil

P.S. We often go along this stretch of the highway to see relatives. I hope that it isn't this bad when we do!

Patristics Carnival VII

Patristics Carnival VI will be right here back at hyperekperissou. So...

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

The last day of submission will be December 31st and the postings will be up later by the week of January 7th. .

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

Peace,
Phil

Christian Reconciliation Carnival 10

Welcome to the 10th Christian Reconciliation Carnival! I've enjoyed hosting and hope you enjoyed the topic for this month.

For those of you who don't remember it or who need a reminder, the question I posted was:

How does our understanding of Early Christianity (here defined as the apostolic period to the end of the patristic age c. 750 AD)help or hinder our efforts at Christian Reconciliation?

I'm afraid I didn't see many answers, but the two that I did see I thought were excellent ones. My own take on the subject appears here.

Mark Olsen on the Pseudo-Polymath blog writes an excellent critique of the question and my optimism. His points about the barriers to the use of patristics for ecumenical purposes are well-taken, but I hope there may still be some room movement. Certainly, Protestants, especially evangelicals, have moved quite a bit towards hearing the patristic voice in a way that they've never done.

Weekend Fisher on the Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength blog sees the use of patristics in ecumenical circles as a way to de-bug the code of our common faith, both to work out how we got here and what may have gone wrong in how did. This is an interesting metaphor, although I would characterize patristics, at its best, as a running commentary on Scripture. But, then, I was a classicist in a former life, so am more comfortable with commentaries than computer code. Same idea though, I think.

General Reconciliation links.

Mike Olsen on the Pseudo-Polymath blog analyses modern attempts at reform and makes suggestions about avoiding the mistakes of past reformers.

Weekend Fisher on the Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength blog discusses Luther's view of Real Prescence and its connection to the omniprescence of God.

Darrel Pursiful on the Dr. Platypus blog discusses the Taize community and a reflection of Brother Roger, the founder of the community, about the need for all Christians to exchange the gifts of our traditions.

T.M. Moore on the First Things blog offers the results of his study of Mary with the Evangelical and Catholics Together project. In this entry, Moore discusses the blessedness of Mary.

David Moore on the JollyBlogger blog discusses the common devotion to infighting in blogsphere.

John on the Notes from a Common-Place Book blog calls our attention to Ethiopian Orthodoxy.

Wei-Hsien Wan on the Bumi Dipijak blog discusses St. Maximos the Confessor's attitude to theological controversy and his attempt to be as charitable to his opponents as possible as an example of how we should also conduct our own theological controversies.

Bird on The Thinklings blog declares his commitment to ecumenism and his refusal to believe on Christian group has a monopoly on truth.

Well, that's it for this 10th Christian Reconciliation Carnival!

Peace,
Phil

Patristics and Christian Reconciliation

Today's entry is my attempt to answer my own question for the Christian Reconciliation Carnival, namely:

How does our understanding of Early Christianity (here defined as the apostolic period to the end of the patristic age c. 750 AD)help or hinder our efforts at Christian Reconciliation?

To some degree, part of my project on this blog has been to try to answer this question and I don't think I've quite solved the problem (surprisingly, since no one else since the Reformation has either), but here are my current thoughts on the issue.

First, I have to concede that the use of the Fathers and of Early Christianity has not been the source of Christian unity for a very long time. One of the running polemical battles in and since the Reformation has been the conflicting vision of what the Early Church was as a way of justifying either the status quo or justifying the reforms suggested by the Reformers. Sometimes Catholics are surprised to hear the degree to which the Protestant Reformers were concerned with the Fathers and the degree to which they quoted them. Luther and Calvin were particularly active in this patristic interest. Certainly, Luther was, at heart, an Augustinian, although he tended to stress rather different aspects of Augustine's program than the Catholics did. Similarly, Calvin was well able to quote the Fathers at length. Catholics, of course, exploited the catholic language of the Fathers and the clear respect for the Roman church which most Fathers displayed.

These polemics, of course, continue. Protestants are accustomed to assume some kind of breaking point in the early Church, when the 'Romish' error really took root and corrupted the pure Church (which looks, unsurprisingly, like the Protestant church). Those breaking points are things like the introduction of philosophy into theology with Origen, the Constantinian revolution and such things. Before this period, Protestants could take the practices and the writings of the period seriously. After that period, all was lost.

Catholics are accustomed to assume that everything said in the patristic era backs them up. That means, all too often, the assumption that the references to the catholic church are, actually, references to the Roman Catholic Church. It also tends to mean an assumption that the respect granted to Rome translated into some kind of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

Now, if we added the Eastern Orthodoxy, of course, we'd have another polemical vision of the early Church; one that wouldn't be far from the Roman Catholic one, but differing largely in the degree of respect that the church should give to Rome. Yet, we have to recognize that all of these polemics retain both truth and distortions. Indeed, if we are to move to reconciling Christians in a real sense, we need to have a second look at these visions, return to the sources and figure out where we have been right and where we've misconstrued in our hope to score points off each other.

This means that the answer is ressourcement , that French word which signials a return to sources. Of course, this term was first used by Roman Catholic theologians from the middle of the last century to mark a return to the sources of the Roman Catholic faith, most notably, the Fathers. Much of the vigour both in patristic study and in the Roman Catholic faith over the last fifty years has been due to this ressourcement.

What is more there are distinct signs of a Protestant, especially evangelical, ressourcement from the 1990s. The efforts of such Protestant theologians as D.H. Williams, Thomas Oden, Robert Wilken and many others have created what could only be called the rise of a breed of catholic evangelicals; evangelicals who retain all the marks of the evangelical tradition, but who are influenced by the ecclesiology, christology and theology of the Early Church and, directly or indirectly, the Fathers. The efforts of these theologians have led to such projects as The Ancient Commentary on Scripture series and the Evangelical Ressourcement series from Baker Academic.

More encouragingly, these efforts at ressourcement among evangelicals (and Protestants, in general) have gone hand in hand with an ecumenical interest which has sought to bridge the divides between Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. One of the products of this interest is the 'Emerging' Church movement which has been catching the interest of younger evangelicals and which has sought to apply a catholic ecclesiology and understanding of the Christian past to an evangelical setting. Now, there are problems with the Emerging Church model, of course, but its use of the Christian past to unite, rather than divide is a positive model for how we might use the Christian past for those interested in Christian Reconciliation.

Ultimately, we can't know how this ressourcement will affect all of the great traditions of Christianity. What is encouraging in this movement is that there has been an equal interest in the Fathers and the Christian past and in making sure that, this time, the past unites us. There is, of course, no question of papering over our differences or pretending that we don't have much to divide us. However, we share a past together and it is in understanding this past that gives us a chance to come together again, accepting our differences, but celebrating our similarities.

Peace,
Phil

An Interesting Proposal from Logos Software

Mike Aubrey has passed on some interesting news that Logos Software is thinking about digitizing Migne's Patrologia Graecia. For those who don't know it, Migne's PG is, arguably, the most comprehensive attempt to pull together all the Greek Fathers and remains the best text for many patristics texts. Even if new editions are out, the Migne text remains an important resource. Needless to say, digitizing Migne would be a helpful resource for patricists, even if amateurs, I suspect, will find the price for the product steep, especially because it seems targetted to libraries and institutions.

Anyways, more information at Mike's blog en epheso

Peace,
Phil

Christian Reconciliation Carnival 10

I've agreed to host another carnival for this month, the Christian Reconciliation Carnival; a carnival devoted to ecumenical questions and our prayers for the (re-)unification of the Christian Church. The deadline I'm proposing for submissions is December 19th (that, I know is a bit tight, but I'm going away on the 23rd, so need time to put this together).

My proposed topic is:

How does our understanding of Early Christianity (here defined as the apostolic period to the end of the patristic age c. 750 AD)help or hinder our efforts at Christian Reconciliation?

Please submit entries or nominations to by December 19th and I expect to post by the end of the week.

Peace,
Phil

Sulpicius Severus, Life of St. Martin, 16

Here is the new installment of the St. Martin story by Sulpicius Severus.

Translation:

Truly, he had the gift of curing people so that almost no sick person came to him who did not immediately receive back his health. This is apparent in the following example: (2) A certain girl from Treveris (Treves) suffered from a serious paralysis so that, for a long time, she did not make use of her body at all. Half-dead in all parts of her body, she trembled with scarcely a tenuous breath. (3) Her relatives were standing near in only the expectation of her funeral, when suddenly it was announced that Martin had come to that city. When the father of the girl found this out, he rushed about to breathlessly beg for (the life of) his child. (4) By chance, Martin was in the entrance of the church. There, with the people and many of the other bishops looking on, the old man, howled and embraced Martin's knees, saying "My daughter is dying from a miserable illness and because that death is very cruel, she lives only by her spirit, now her body is almost dead. I ask that you come to her and bless her: For I am confident that her health must be recovered through you. (5)Martin, dumbfounded by that speech, was struck dumb and retreated, saying that this was not something of which he was worthy, that the old man erred in his judgement, that he (Martin) was not worthy to be the sign through whom the Lord would show his power.

Weeping, the father vehemently pressed Martin and begged that he visit his dying daughter. (6) He, forced to go by the surrounding bishops, descended into the house of the girl. A huge crowd awaited him before the doors to see what the slave of God would do. (7) First, he took up those familiar arms of his in this type of situation, he stretched out and prayed alone. Then, gazing on the sick girl, he asked for olive oil to be given him. When he blessed her, he poured the force of the holy liquid on the girl's face and immediately her voice returned. (8) Then, gradually, each of her limbs began to live through the contact with him (it?). Finally, she got up with firm steps as the people bore witness.

Commentary:

This is the opening of a new section about St. Martin's cures and miracles as opposed to his successful and somewhat miraculous campaign against rural paganism in his region. In this section, the parallels we should be seeking are the biblical ones, especially of Jesus' own healings and miracles. This is in keeping with the stress with any saint's imitation of Christ in that, by their imitation of Christ, these saints share some of the power of Christ for healings and miracles.

I think the pattern we're using here for this miracle is the daughter of Jairus story found in both Mark, 7, 21-43 and Luke 8, 41-56, of course without the encounter with the woman with the issue of blood which is woven into this story by the Gospel writers. The parallels are striking:
1. Both Martin and Jesus come to town and are immediately accosted by a desperate father asking for a cure for his dying daughter
2. Both girls are very near death and past the ability of doctors to save
3. Both Martin and Jesus pray in the room with the girl who is miraculous raised to full health.

Of course, there are significant differences, but these differences are, I think, instructive. First, Martin hesitates to go because he doesn't believe he has the power to effect the cure. He only goes because he is pressed by the various bishops with whom he was meeting in the city. This hesitation, of course, is to show Martin's humility and recognition of the limits of his own power. This humility is the mark of a saint and it is very important that Martin not too closely emulate Jesus. At least, if he emulated Jesus' clear confidence in healing, we would think St. Martin arrogant enough to equate himself with Jesus, with God. Furthermore, we know from the Desert Fathers that humility is the very thing that demons and devils cannot endure, so St. Martin's humility is the mark of his sanctity.

Second, the girl in the St. Martin healing isn't dead just yet. While raisings from the dead are a tradition in hagiographical writings, they are usually the culmination of one's healing career, not the beginning of it. If Sulpicius should have introduced such a healing at this point, all the other cures would seem rather an anti-climax. So, as far as composition goes, we have a rather less spectacular healing to start with.

Third, Sulpicius is rather more sensationalistic here than the Gospel Writers. This is in keeping with the rhetoric of the age, but it does put the lie into Sulpicius' claim to be a not particularly polished writer. Perhaps the pathos in this and other scenes might strike one as a little garish and gruesome at times, but that was the style of the age.

Fourth, Sulpicius clearly portrays in this episode the ancient practice of using annointing with oil in healing. Indeed, while Jesus prayed and brought Jairus' daughter to life, Martin prays only as a preparation for the annointing of the sick. Sulpicius describes this procedure as being St. Martin's accustomed arms to battle illness. The military metaphor is, of course, striking for this former soldier-saint, but also indicates the importance of this practice of annointing the sick. Note especially that the healing seems to follow the flow of the oil over the body of the girl.

A last translation note for the Latinists in my readership. The following clause gave me pause when translating:

tunc paulatim singula contactu eius membra vivescere,

I translated this passage as
Then, gradually, each of her limbs began to live through the contact with him

This would suggest that the healing is following St. Martin's touch. I wonder, however, if the contactu eius should be understood as referring to the oil. Grammatically, I think, both would work, but which works better, I wonder.

Peace,
Phil

Patristics Carnival VI

December 3rd: Edited because this is Patristics Carnival VI!
Happy Advent! And welcome to Patristics Carnival VI (without a fancy graphic: just couldn't work out how to transform God Fearin's graphic from PC V!)! It's been a couple of months since I last posted (for which I thank the two previous hosts, especially because I was in a bit of sleep-deprived haze!), so it is nice to be back. I'm going to recover my old structure (for fun). So here we are: Patristics Carnival VI

Front Gate: Introductions to the Fathers

Nothing in this category this month.

The Midway: Articles on the Fathers

Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers blog reports on Pope Benedict's address on St. Maximus of Turin, St. Jerome, St. John Chyrosthom, St. Martin of Tours, St. Jerome again, Jerome again, St Ephrem Syrus.

First Apostle on the First Apostle blog features an article on Gregory of Nyssa and how his view of the Trinity argues against the current liturgical practice of naming the Trinity: Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer.

Carl Olson on The Insight Scoop (from Ignatius Press) features a report on Pope Benedict's address on St. John Chyrosthom.

John on the Ancient Hebrew Poetry blog reports on Pope Benedict's address on St. Jerome.

Father Chadius on the Hermeneia blog featurs a discussion on St. Gregory the Great and patience.

Scrape on the Legendary Truth Blog discusses the interplay of patristic exegesis and theology as presented by Donald Fairbourn in an article in the Westminister Theological Journal.

Scott Carson on the An Examined Life Blog features a discussion of Christianity and Platonism. . This is a response to Taylor Marshall on the Canterbury Tales Blog which suggested that Neo-Platonism has a Christian origin Hmm. I wonder.

Rob Bradshaw on the Early Church blog posts G.L. Prestige's Bampton Lecture on Origen.

God-Fearin Fiddler on the God Fearin' Forum features excellent discussions of St. Irenaeus as the bridge between East and West, St. Irenaeus' doctrines in his own words and early Christians and the Sacrifice of the Mass.

I also offer some thoughts on the Church Fathers and Judaism at hyperekperissou

The Rodeo: Patristic catenae

Veritas on the Is the Catholic Church the One True Church? blog gives a mostly patristic catena on the question of the authority of the Catholic Church as opposed to Protestantism.


Exhibition Place: Biographies of the Fathers

Nothing in this category this month.

The Marketplace: Book Reviews
Rick Brannon on ricoblog features a series on Hubertus Drobner's book, The Fathers of the Church. Part one has been finished. I look forward to future reflections on this book.

Steve Ray on Steve Ray's Blog reviews Brian Litfin's Getting to Know the Church Fathers. I'm not sure if I quite agree with his conclusions about the new evangelical/Protestant interest in the Fathers. This trend has longer legs than I thought it would.

Paul Smith Jr. on the Gazizza blog continues this discussion of Litfin's book.

Well, someone liked Litfin's book. Mike Aubrey on the ev epheso blog gives an extensive and favourable review of Litfin's book.

This blog, hyperekperissou, featured two reviews: Ronald Heine's book on the Church Fathes and the Old Testament and Bart Ehrmann's Misquoting Jesus.

The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations

I continue my series on Sulpicius Severus' Life of St. Martin at hyperekperissou.

The Apocryphal Aisle: Christian Apocrypha

Tony Chartrand-Burke on the Apocryphicity blog features a pre-SBL discussion of modern heresy hunters at the Society of Biblical Literature meeting this year, a SBL report and a discussion of Apocrypha anti-Gospels.

April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospels blog discusses whether scholars should write for a popular audience (as she did in her new book on the Gospel of Judas), her reactions to the Judas book panel at the SBL, her contribution to this same panel and her bemused reaction to being called a conservative.

I hope you enjoy this month's offerings. If there is anyone wanting to host December, let me know. If not, I'll be hunting down new hosts for the new year!

Peace,
Phil

The Church Fathers and Judaism

If you hang around patristic circles for any time, you will find someone who will object to the Fathers collectively because of their attitude to Judaism or women or such groups. Nor are these protests entirely without a point. We cannot expect the Church Fathers to be free from the prejudices and cultural blindness of their period, so, predictably, individual Church Fathers can be depended on to say things to which, today, we would take offense, if one of our contemporaries should say it. Part of this is because the rhetoric of the age was rather more polemical in tone than we would countenance in our rather bland, but serviceable civil discourse today. And, yes, part of it was the moral failings of those Fathers who were sinners, just like the rest of us. That sounds presumptuous, of course, but, if not even Paul could not rely on his own righteousness, I don't know anyone else who could. The last I checked the only sinless man was Jesus, so is it a stretch to say that his saints were also sinners, even if they were seeking sanctification in imitating Jesus to the best of their ability?

These thoughts particularly came into my head because, over the last few weeks, I've been reading R. Kendall Soulen's God of Israel and Christian Theology. Soulen examines the theological issue of how Christians have dealt with the God of Israel from the early patristic age (St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus) to the Englightenment (Schliermacher and Kant) to Barth and Rahner. His main aim was to examine the impact of supersessionism on our beliefs about the God of Israel and his people in the aftermath of the Holocaust. His discussion of St. Justin and St. Irenaeus is, I think, illuminating, if disturbing for a patristics enthusiast living in this post-Holocaust world.

What he argues is that Justin and Irenaeus were instrumental in working out how to reconcile the Hebrew Testament with the Christian narrative, later expressed in the New Testament writings (which had not yet fully formed into a canon yet). He notes the appropriation of the Hebrew Testament, especially the prophetic writings, away from its historical connection with the people of Israel towards allegorical and typologically pre-figuring of Christ. That is, the story of Israel becomes the story of Christ pre-figured, while the story of the Church is the story of Christ in real time. In that sense, the experience of Israel as a people is superseded by the story of the Church in Christ. Israel in its carnal reality becomes obsolete and replaced by the spiritual reality of the Church. The most the Jewish people could be would be a noble ruin of a previous covenant. This would be defined as economic supersessionism in that the obsolescence of Israel is an essential feature of God's economy of redemption for the world.

Soulen, then, goes on to describe a more overtly anti-Semitic form of supersessionism: punitive supersessionism. This form of supersessionism, also found in Fathers like Justin and Irenaeus, goes beyond pronouncing Israel obsolete, but it openly argues that the Jewish people reject God in Christ and, thus, have been rejected by God. The persistent accusation levelled against the Jewish people that they were Christ-killers and such like comes from this form of supersessionism. Of course, after the Holocaust, this virulent form of supersessionism has been discredited and very few Christians would countence this kind of theological position.

What Soulen establishes for us is that the outlines of these two forms of supersessionism can be found in the 2nd century Fathers who most determined how we read Scripture: Sts. Justin and Irenaeus. He also points out that this settlement is very different from Paul's image in Romans about the Gentile church being a graft onto Israel and the understanding that Paul had that Israel will eventually turn to its Lord (Romans 11). He also notes that the economic supersessionism of the Fathers is later intensified by Enlightenment and post-Englightenment thinkers who wanted to expell all particularist elements of relligion from Christianity in order to enforce its claim as a universal, 'reasonable' religion.

This tendency towards supersessionism in this context explains the almost Marcionite tendency in mainline denominations (especially those with strong liberal leanings) to dismiss the Hebrew Testaments as merely law and, hence, useless for Christians who, like the New Testament church, are a people of grace. It also explains how and why the churches of Hitler's Germany so easily accepted the anti-Semitic measures of that government, even to the point of Holocaust. They simply had no resources to resist the formulation that Judaism could safely be removed from Christianity because they were already doing it.

The problem, of course, is what to do about this problem of supersessionism. It is, of course, easy to condemn punitive supersessionism, but economic supersessionism remains a more seductive and insideous problem. It is especially difficult because the Gospels clearly show Jesus re-interpreting passages of the prophets as evidence of his mission and, ultimately, of his death and resurrection. In that sense, the Fathers who look for Christological types in the Hebrew Testaments are really only emulating their Lord in how to read the Hebrew writings. Christianity very much tells its story by co-opting Israel's story as our own.

The question that remains for me at this stage is whether Christians can return to the settlement of Paul which saw Gentiles miraculously participating in the story of Israel as grafted branches? After all, did not several prophets suggest that, in the days of the Messiah, that the nations would worship the God of Israel? This approach, I think, would change the way that we would read the Hebrew Testaments, but also how we interact with the children of Israel today. Can we honour the faithfulness of God's people today, while continuing to maintain that they will come to accept their Messiah, Jesus Christ, in God's due time?

I can't yet answer these questions fully, but I think they are the directions in which we need to work, if we expect to re-interpret our relationship with the God of Israel, the Hebrew Testament and the Jewish people. May we have the wisdom to do just that.

Peace,
Phil

Book Review: Bart Ehrmann, Misquoting Jesus.

Early last week, I finished Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, a book which attempts both to popularize a discussion of textual criticism of the Bible and, I think, to raise serious questions about how we read the Bible in today's world. Generally, it was well-written, but that was all the more exhausting because I really felt I had to watch Ehrman all the time or he'd perform a pretty slight-of-hand on his audience without anyone really realizing.

The first warning to watch was in the introduction as Ehrman describes his own personal journey of faith and how it interacted with his studies in the Bible and textual criticism. Ehrman's early faith journey was spent in fundamentalist and evangelical circles in the course of the 60s and 70s. This meant his vision of the Bible was to emphasize its inerrancy and its verbal plenary inspiration. That meant that every single word, letter and punctuation mark had to be both absolutely correct and inspired. The problem was that, as he continued his studies in the Bible at the Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College and Princeton, he discovered that there were many, many textual issues with the New Testament, so he started wondering how this inerrancy could work. Not a bad question in its own way, but deeply problematic for Ehrman.

Before I read even this far, I realized that Ehrman hadn't so much changed his mind about inerrancy and verbal plenary inspiration, but rather he has switched polarity. Since his former conception of Biblical authority couldn't work in the face of what he had learned, he rejects any possibility that the Bible could be authoritative, but rejects it as a merely human document no different from those ancient documents of Jesus' era and after. He is every much a literalist as he was in his Moody days, he has just rejected what that literalism teaches.

This should raise cautions about how we read this book, not because he's wrong about there being real textual issues with the Bible, but because his tendency is to oppose traditional readings or theology. As far as the textual criticism, he's right quite often, but there are times where I wonder about his argument. Here are just a few of my concerns.

One of the things that bother me is Ehrman's repeated contention that Christian scribes before Constantine were likely distinctly sub-standard. He bases this on a discussion in which he describes the dubious literacy of two scribes in Egypt and concludes that, since documentary evidence suggests that Christians were distinctly lower class as a rule and, according to Celsus (a prominent pagan opponent) under-educated (p.38-41). He, then, uses this contention to tar early Christian readings at several points throughout his book. Yet, this contention needs an examination. Celsus' evidence is suspect because he is hardly going to favour Christians; both given his enmity to Christians and his privileged cultural status which might engender intellectual elitism. Furthermore, we have to remember that literacy wasn't necessarily impossible even among slaves. What is more, given that copying was a technical skill (moderately lucrative, but not outrageously so-roughly 2 drachmas for a letter in the reign of Claudius), it is entirely possible to see freedmen involved in this activity, possibly at a high level. I know of no studies to back me up, but I suspect that the degree of literacy may not be entirely class-bound.

A second concern occurs in his passage dealing with theological 'corrections' to the text, Ehrman consistently argues against the majority, traditional reading of Scripture as fixing passages which might seem to back heretical interpretations. He employs the well-known rule of following the lectio difficilior on the principle that a scribe is unlikely to fix something which makes perfect sense. I don't want to say this principle is incorrect, but I see no a priori reason why it has to apply here. It is just as possible that some of these passages which support these heretical positions were inserted into the text by heretics and simply recognized as erroneous in the majority of our manuscripts. I see no reason to assume orthodox correction in the majority of cases. This doesn't apply to those cases in which a gloss may have crept into the text.

What worries me about Ehrman's book is that it feeds into the tendency in our culture to want to see the Bible's authoritativeness weakened. This tendency can be seen even in Christian circles and it worries me. You don't have to be a fundamentalist to believe that Bible is authoritative in Christian discourse; the standard to which we check our theological positions against. This naturally leads to a discussion on authority in the Bible which is rather another discussion. The task of textual criticism in this conception is not to tear apart our reading of the Scriptures, but, rather, to try to establish the text as clearly as possible. One of the things that Ehrman doesn't emphasize is that the job of the textual critic of the Bible is made easier by the sheer number of manuscripts. A classicist would kill for the textual tradition of the Bible. This isn't to say that there aren't an awful lot of errors in that tradition, but sheer number of errors doesn't signify much. They just prove humans copied it.

Peace,
Phil