The First News of Jesus: Tiberius, Pilate and Christian History

I've been thinking about this post for a while and decided today was the day to give it a run. Part of what I'm trying to do here is to rectify my own tendency to get caught up with broader themes without getting down to the nitty gritty. So what I decided to do was to look at a particular incident reported in Eusebius about the Emperor Tiberius. First, the text from Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History (taken from the CCEL Fathers library)

And when the wonderful resurrection and ascension of our Saviour were already noised abroad, in accordance with an ancient custom which prevailed among the rulers of the provinces, of reporting to the emperor the novel occurrences which took place in them, in order that nothing might escape him, Pontius Pilate informed Tiberius of the reports which were noised abroad through all Palestine concerning the resurrection of our Saviour Jesus from the dead.

2. He gave an account also of other wonders which he had learned of him, and how, after his death, having risen from the dead, he was now believed by many to be a God. They say that Tiberius referred the matter to the Senate, but that they rejected it, ostensibly because they had not first examined into the matter (for an ancient law prevailed that no one should be made a God by the Romans except by a vote and decree of the Senate), but in reality because the saving teaching of the divine Gospel did not need the confirmation and recommendation of men.

But although the Senate of the Romans rejected the proposition made in regard to our Saviour, Tiberius still retained the opinion which he had held at first, and contrived no hostile measures against Christ.
4. These things are recorded by Tertullian, a man well versed in the laws of the Romans, and in other respects of high repute, and one of those especially distinguished in Rome... .

Eusebius goes on to extensively quote the Apology of Tertullian 5,1-2 as evidence for this story. This is, of course, in keeping with Eusebius' methods which tended to feature extensive quotes of earlier authors (were they, even in Eusebius' own time, hard to find?). Note that Eusebius provides a Greek translation of the Tertullian's Latin and that most scholars think it a rather bad one.

What interests me, though, is not Eusebius' methods or use of translations so much as the history of this incident. This incident strikes anyone moderately familiar with the classical tradition about Tiberius as a bit odd. It is not, for instance, mentioned in any classical source despite its obvious usefulness for corroborating the charge of superstition so frequently leveled at Tiberius by the almost exclusively hostile historical witnesses. By itself, Tiberius' dabbling in astrology which reached such a point that he could not bring himself to return to Rome in the last years of his life gives evidence for this charge. Still, favouring such a new and outlandish cult would, to many of Tiberius' critics, have been a very useful stick to beat the dead emperor with. Yet, they don't.

This alone has led to many scholars dismissing this incident entirely out of hand as pure fabrication. At best, this incident is an inference from the assumption that Pilate would have submitted a report about the death of Jesus. Furthermore, Tiberius, at the time of Jesus' crucifixion, had just executed his manipulative lieutenant, Sejanus, and instituted a reign of terror against the Senate and the Imperial family to purge disloyal elements from the Roman state. The seeming coincidence of Pilate's Acts which coincide with this account has been dimissed by Roman historians from Gibbon onwards as just a little too convenient to be taken as corroboration of Eusebius' account.

Clearly, this view has much merit, but I wonder if there aren't elements in this account which may reflect an actual report and debate at the time of Tiberius. The fact of a report, I think, is relatively unchallenged. As Tiberius' legate, I would expect that Pilate would report on unusual occurrences in his province. Even if we accept the minimal position of Jesus' crucifixion and a body of people running around saying he had been resurrected, Jesus' death and the events which followed were unusual enough to report. I doubt we have the current Acts of Pilate are the actual report because there is widespread evidence for the forgery of these Acts by both Christian and pagan sources (Eusebius reports one such pagan forgery in HE, 9, 5).

Nor is it improbable that Tiberius might have sent this report on to the Senate nor that the Senate might debate over whether this Jesus was a new god. Given the religious conservatism of the Romans, it would not be a surprise that such a debate would end in the denial of godhood status for Jesus. Yet, in Tertullian, at least, the whole point of citing this debate wasn't to make a claim that the Romans perversely ignored Jesus' divine claims, but, rather, that, despite the Roman accusations that Jesus is just a new god and, hence, falls under the category of superstition not devotion, the Romans could and did create new gods when it suited them. It is Eusebius who converts this story into evidence for the resurrection which the Romans perversely disregarded. The seemingly throw-away comment in both that Tiberius favoured Christian claims merely serves to reinforce Christian claims that their faith has lived in harmony with Roman authorities from its very beginning.

Further, we should unpack this contention that Tiberius implicitly accepted the claims of Jesus' divine status. I think we have to be very careful here about what, if anything, that acceptance meant. There is no suggestion, for instance, that Tiberius gave up any of his worship of other gods nor, indeed, his vicious propensities so prominent in our sources. Nor does there seem to be any indication that he was trying to install Christ as the only god of the Roman Empire. What is far more likely is that, if he was trying to do anything, Tiberius was hedging his bets and attempting to syncretize this new god into the Roman religious system. The Senate blocked a formal acceptance of this syncretization, but Tiberius clearly thought it worthwhile to tolerate the cult implicitly, possibly because it was so small and localized, so hardly worth crushing. Perhaps he thought it was a form of hero worship--that halfway house between mere human existence and divinity-- which was localized to a particular area and characterized by localized festivals and cultic activity. I don't know, but I think Eusebius may have been reaching in using this as evidence for acceptance of the reports of resurrection.

Now, we come to the last question that any Christian historian should ask himself: why does this story matter? Isn't this just a misguided attempt to harmonize pagan and Christian history in order to serve a transparently apologetic purpose. Well, in a sense. Yet, if we accept this story as garbled evidence for the first reaction of the Roman state to Jesus of Nazareth, do we see here a good example of how different the world views represented by the Romans and the early Christians were. The Romans saw these reports, if I'm right, as a minor point of religious law which could be dealt with quickly and easily in a senatorial debate, while Christians continue to recognize the death and resurrection of Jesus as the hinge-point of all history. The almost ho-hum, routine atmosphere of the Senate's answer shows no effort to engage with this momentous event in a way a Christian would recognize. This is just another odd report from the provinces. Even Tiberius only saw it within the same restriction of a common Roman worldview in which he was willing to incorporate the new cult, but not really to engage in its teachings.

As Christians, we have faced incomprehension at least as much as we have faced hostility or even acceptance. This is as true today as in the Roman period. This story is merely evidence of how far that incomprehension went at the time of Jesus. Yet, the power of Jesus is that, from that insignificant beginning in Judaea, Jesus' life, death and resurrection has proven to be so analamous and so difficult to contain within any worldview that he bursts out of it. The Romans dismissed the death of Jesus and stories of his resurrection almost reflexively, yet they were unable to completely suppress the import of those events. Tiberius, the Roman Senate and, indeed, Pilate seem to have been clueless about what Jesus represented. The Romans themselves would eventually be forced to come to terms with this strange Judaean prophet.

Peace,
Phil

Patrisics Roundup-January 18-24th, 2007

Hello, patristic-bloggers et al,

It has been another busy week in patristics land. Here are the offerigs for this week.

Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers gives us a link to his conversation on the Fathers on Amplify!, commemorates the feast days of Sts. Sebastian and Agnes, quotes St. Thomas More on the Fathers.

William Weedon posts Patristic Quotes of the day featuring St. Maximos the Confessor, and St. Augustine .

Trevor at On the Temple Doorstep, tells us about a patristics game he tried out on his son (anyone know where we can get it!!!!).

John at kata Iwannhn quotes Peter Leithart on why the Fathers and the Reformers were so focused on the theological controversies of the day and we interest ourselves in the trivialities of politics.

Nick at Pass the Peace tells us about his encounter with Baptist Catholics, who retain a free-church theology, but pursue an interest in the Fathers. Sounds good to me.

Fred Sanders on Middlebrow offers us a review of the Council of Chalcedon and the doctrine of the Trinity.

Death Bredon at the Patristic Anglican reminds us about the decisions on images made at the 7th Ecumenical Council and follows up with his observations on St. Basil's Canon.

Jim Davila on PaleoJudaica lets us know about books on Syriac Fathers which we can download for free.

Rick Brannon on ricoblog posts his text and commentary on Didache 11

Danny Garland on Irish-Catholic and Dangerous posts St. John of Damascus on the Eucharistand St. John Chrysosthom on St. Paul's Conversion.

Chris Johnston at The Saint Ambrose reviews Richard Foster's Steams of Living Water; a book which helped inspired my own search of the treasures of patristics and the rest of our Christian tradition.

A little late, but Christian Bible studies features an interview with Christopher Hall on Habits of the Highly Effective Bible Readers which features a discussion about why Protestants have been turning more and more to the Fathers.

Phil Johnston on Pyromaniacs also discusses the relationship between the Fathers, the Reformers and sola scriptura.

R posts on Caught by the Light on a talk by Barbara Lymen about orthodoxy and diversity in the early Church. This has a decidedly Anglican pro-diversity lean, but is worth a look at.

Father Z on What does the Prayer Really Say features a patristic (and beyond) catena on the conversion of St. Paul.

Adrian Murdoch on Bread and Circuses continues his discussion about Synesius of Cyrene.

Please do let me know about any broken links or problems.

Enjoy!

Peace,
Phil

Patristics Carnival II

Announcing Patristic Carnival II which will be hosted by Kevin Edgecomb at bibliocalia.

The Patristics Carnival is devoted to the best blog entries dealing with Patristics and Christian Apocrypha (defined as the period between AD 70-750). It is published on a quarterly basis. The current carnival features entries from December 1st, 2005 to Feb. 28th, 2007. Entries in history, theology, religious studies and philology are welcome. You can nominate either your own entries or entries written by another person.

You can submit entries by e-mailing your nominations to:
patristics-carnival@hotmail.com
or our submissions page on Blog Carnival.

The Carnival will be posted in early March.

We are also looking for a host for the next Carnival, due for posting in June. If you are interested, please e-mail the patristics carnival e-mail and Kevin will pass it along to me.

Okay, everyone, get out there and find your favourite entries over the last few months! I look forward to the results.

Peace,
Phil

Sulpicius Severus, Life of Martin 3 and 4

In the last installment of the Life of Martin, we learned about Martin's upbringing and his conversion. The next passage deals with the famous incident in which Martin gives a beggar half of his military cloak, only to discover that the beggar was Christ. Since I translated that passage on the occasion of the St. Martin's Day, last November, I refer my readers back to that post here.

Let's continue the story with the story of Martin's discharge from the army.

Translation:

(4) Meanwhile, after barbarians attacked Gaul, Julian Caesar gathered an army at the city of Amiens and began to pay a donative to the soldiers. As was the custom, each man was summoned until it was Martin’s turn. (2) Martin, thinking it was truly the opportune time to seek a discharge because he did not think it honest, if he who will not serve received a payment. “Until now” he said to the Caesar, “I have served you. (3) Allow me to be a soldier for God: one who will fight should receive the bonus. I am a soldier of Christ. It is not right for me to fight.” (4) Then, the tyrant turned to him and growled that Martin withdrew from military service because of his fear of the battle, not because of religious devotion. (5) Martin, unshaken, on the contrary even more resolute because terror inflicted on him, said “If you impute this to cowardliness, not to faith, tomorrow, I will stand unarmed in the battle line and, protected by the name of the Lord Jesus and the sign of the cross, not by shield or helmet, I will break through the enemy’s army unharmed.” (6) Therefore, it was ordered that he be thrust into custody, so that he would prove that that he would be thrown unarmed before the barbarians. (7) On the next day, the enemy sent peace emissaries and surrendered. From this, would anyone doubt that this victory belonged to that blessed man who was saved from being sent unarmed into battle. (8) Although, to be sure, the Holy Lord would have been able to save his soldier amid the shields and spears of the enemy, nevertheless saint’s gaze would have been violated by the deaths of others, He took away the necessity. (9) Christ held back no another victory for His soldier than that no died and that the enemy was subdued without bloodshed.


Commentary:
I find this incident interesting on several levels, but I think we need to place ourselves historically first before we can explore the theological implications of this passage.

Presumably, this event would have happened sometime after August, 355 AD, when Julian (later the Apostate) had been appointed Caesar in Gaul by his cousin, the Emperor Constantius II. The frontiers of Gaul had been under severe strain for much of the decade after the overthrow of Constantius' brother, Constans, who had been murdered by the usurper, Magnentius. Magnentius had taken advantage of Constans' unpopularity in the army (possibly due to his rather authoritarian personality and his propensity for disappearing into the shrubbery with young men) and taken control of the West. This immediately led him into conflict with Constantius II who was rushing westward, eager to avenge the death of his brother and uphold the claims of the Constantinian dynasty. This forced Magnentius to strip the Rhine/Danube defences to confront Constantius in Pannonia (modern day Yugoslavia) where he lost in a hard fought battle at Mursa. The Germans and Sarmatians on the border quickly perceived the weakened forces facing them and quickly broke through the defences. With the renewal of Persian activity in the East, Constantius found himself overwelmed with the need to restore the defences on the Rhine and the Danube as well as shoring up the defences in the East.

His solution was to turn to a cousin to lead the army. The problem, of course, was that Constantius II had, early in his reign, murdered most of his family in Constantinople in order to remove threats to his imperial power. Julian's father died and he and his brother was sent to honourable, if obscure captivity. This couldn't fail to embitter Julian against Constantius. Nor did it help that, when Constantius faced the revolt of Magnentius, he made Julian's brother, Gallus, Caesar in the East and quickly deposed and executed him for plotting for more power. The charges probably had some basis as Gallus was rather rash in his enjoyment of power, but it did little to endear Constantius to Julian. When the time came for his elevation to the status of Caesar, Julian accepted it with the air of a man condemned to death.

Constantius, of course, was no fool and he placed more controls on his cousin than on Gallus. The idea was that Julian would be a mere imperial figurehead and that Constantius' generals would conduct the efforts to restore the Gallic defences. Fortunately (or unfortunately for Constantius), Julian proved less pliable and more talented in military matters than expected. Quickly, Julian gained real command in Gaul and achieved significant successes against the German defenders. This, ultimately, would lead to Julian's revolt against Constantius and, after Constantius' death on his way to confront the rebels, Julian's rise to power. Julian, of course, is the last pagan emperor and only ruled for three years before being killed in an ill-advised invasion of Persia.

One of the interesting elements here is that Severus describes Julian as a tyrant which strikes me as somewhat premature. Julian did persecute the Church to mild degree (there were indications that that persecution was escalating), but only when he was sole emperor. At the time of this incident, presumably around 356 AD, he was ostensibly Christian and was maintaining a very conciliatory policy with pagans and Christians in general. By all accounts, Julian's administration in the West was unusually benign and it was only in the last year of his life that he began to adopt a less reasonable position on the Christian question. This can be shown that Julian's objection to Martin's request for discharge was that of a general addressing a shirker, not a pagan attacking a Christian. With the growth of monasticism, these kinds of withdrawals were beginning to be become common and, I'm sure, Julian was not interested in encouraging the trend, given his concern in defending the Empire and the general crisis in recruiting sufficient manpower for the army in the Empire at this time.

Yet, one wonders what led to Martin's decision to withdraw from the army at this point. It is entirely possible that most of Martin's career had been spent in garrison duty, so that this mustering of the army and the imminence of battle the next day is what brought on the crisis which led to Martin's withdraw from the army. In garrison duty, it would be entirely possible that Martin could pursue the nearly monastic life he was leading in the army without the necessity of killing anyone which would be a grave breach of the 10 Commandments and the teachings of Jesus at the time of his arrest. This would explain that, when his courage is doubted, Martin offers to stand unarmed in front of the army to prove that he was no coward. It also explain why Severus states that the surrender of the enemy was to allow Martin's gaze from being violated by the inevitable slaughter around him, even if he did not participate in it. I think this is what Severus seems to be setting up, although I must admit I find it hard to believe Martin had seen no combat in the 350s, amid the collapse of the Gallic defences. Still, it does say interesting things about the conflict of Christian values and war, doesn't it?

The miracle, of course, is an interesting one when we start thinking about the early Christian attitude to war. There is no doubt that Christians were in the army and that this was permitted by many Christian communities. Indeed, the most severe problems with this military service tended to be the necessity to sacrifice to pagan gods on a regular basis which would have forced the Christian soldier to confront idolatry quite regularly. Yet, there is an undertone of repugnance for killing which makes these military saints interesting in the light of debates over Christian pacifism. That, of course, is another discussion.

Peace,
Phil

Patristics Roundup-January 11-18, 2007

Here is the new roundup. Technical difficulties slowed me down this week, but the volume of patristic posts seems to be less this week.

Here we go (yea, ha!)

Mike Aquilina at The Way of the Fathers tells us to be of good cheer on the occasion of the feast day of St. Hilary of Poitiers (one of the leading, if unsung, Fathers of the West), traces the papyrus trail of the Fathers on abortion., introduces us to St. Antony's tomb with a view, hooks us up with an interview he did about St. Antony

Danny Garland at Irish-Catholic and Dangerous continues his quoting ways by giving us what the doctor, Doctor Augustine of Hippo, ordered;

William Weedon on Weedon's Blog continues his Patristic Quotes with St. Maximos, St. Hippolytus, St. Jerome and St. Maximos again.

Chris at Exploring the Mystery starts a new series on the Apostles' Creed with a historical overview;

Yet, more praise for Mike Aquilina's book, The Fathers of the Church by Peter Rival on Utter Mutterings . frival continues his praise

Brandon on Siris continues to consider the development of doctrine with special reference to Nestorianism and Apollinarianism.

Darrell Pursiful on Dr. Platypus weighs in on the question of Protestants and the Fathers. All with a kind reference to yours truly!

Ben Smith on Thoughts on Antiquity continues his series on the canon with the conclusion of his thoughts on the Eusebian canon

handmaidleah on Christ Is In Our Midst posts the Nicene Creed, complete with Biblical references.

H West at Rural Suburbia contrasts Patristic precision about language with our own more lacksidaisical approach.

Father Nelson at Theology of the Body features St. Augustine on the Confession of St. Peter.

Adriam Murdoch at Bread and circuses introduces us to the Platonic philosopher and bishop. Synesius of Cyrene.

Father Alvin Kimel at Pontifications offers us excerpts from an Augustinian sermon on growing in justice.

Ben Smith on Thoughts on Antiquity posts his second part of the Eusebian canon. I haven't read it yet, but it looks good...like all the rest of the series.

I hope you enjoyed the offerings!

Peace,
Phil

Claiming Paternity or Why the Church Fathers belong to Protestants too.

I've been thinking about this post for a couple of weeks now since a Patristic Roundup in which a post asked why Protestants wanted to quote the Church Fathers anyway. The gist of the comment is that Protestants aren't willing to listen to the clear testimony of the Fathers on the papacy (sic!), so why are they bothering?. I've been wanting to respond, but I decided that I also wanted to take my time to think out what I wanted to say. So, I'm going to slap on some Taize music (which is oddly appropriate) and get down to it.

To some degree, the surprise expressed by many Roman Catholics and Orthodox about the recent revival of Protestant interest in the Fathers is understandable. The Reformation slogan emphasizing sola scriptura as the basis of authority in Protestant theology did have the effect of stifling Protestant interest in the Fathers. Ultimately, in a Protestant theology, the Bible is perceived as the only necessary basis of authority in the Christian church, so it is less important to know what the Fathers have to say. In the more free church Protestant tradition, this emphasis on sola scriptura has led to a complete rejection of any writer after the Revelation of John as being unnecessary and, in fact, dangerous examples of the corrupted church which arose after the glories of the apostolic age. This has led to a kind of historical myopia and the attempt to create an ahistorical faith which most Roman Catholics and Orthodox associate with Protestantism in general.

Yet, it is interesting to note that most of the Reformers knew their way around the Fathers. Luther, Calvin and even Menno Simmons (representative of the early free church tradition) quoted the Fathers reasonably regularly. This makes sense because most of the early reformers (and many later ones) had a standard theological education through the universities which included a significant dose of patristics. Besides, in their controversies with their Roman Catholic opponents, they needed to challenge a particular view of the history of the Church, so the Fathers were part of that battleground.

Nor was this attention to patristics considered out of step with the larger principle of sola scriptura. The reality of this principle is not a rejection of anything outside the Bible (which is how it has often been read), but that anything outside of the Bible simply doesn't have the same authority. Sometimes those extra-biblical ideas are pernicious because they are in open conflict with what the Bible tells us, but, just as often, these extra-biblical ideas are simply speculative and, hence, not binding on the Church as a whole. This conditions Protestant views on the Fathers because it means that Protestants are always testing even the most revered Father against Scripture. This is contrast to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox tendency to emphasize continuity of apostolic teaching through the Fathers.

Yet, even granting this different attitude, I would argue that it is not inconsistent for Protestants to read the Fathers; only that they read them rather differently. What makes the Fathers so compelling to me is that, at their best, the Fathers, like the Reformers, are primarily concerned with what Scripture has to say. In Christian theology, it is an ever present temptation to allow secular learning to determine how we read the Bible in our attempt to make it relevant to the culture in which we find ourselves. In our own time, many theologians use their modernist or post-modernist education to reach our culture, sometimes to the point of allowing these philosophies to trump the Bible. In the patristic period, it was Greek philosophy (especially that of Plato) or rhetoric which served to trump the Bible. What makes the Fathers as good biblical exegetes as they are is that they resisted this temptation to greater or lesser extent. Even Origen, who by all accounts was heavily influenced by Platonism, could say that every word of Scripture had a meaning. Even when they indulged in allegory or typology, they took Scripture very seriously.

More important than this, the Fathers present a valuable alternative in how to write theology today. Unfortunately, for the last few hundred years, we've been too much in the habit of separating out our thinking from our praying, our theology from our spirituality. I honestly think that much of the unsound theology of the last centuries can be traced from this disconnect. The Fathers, in their very methods, refused to consider this division. Indeed, it never occurred to them. Theology was as much an expression of the Spirit as prayer or worship, if rightly guided. It is this desire to use the intelligence and discernment granted to us by God in a prayerful way which presents a rather different approach to the intellectualized, modernist faith which has characterized much Protestant theology in its various manifestations.

It isn't that Protestants need the Fathers more than anyone else does. All of us, Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, need to hear their wisdom and their teaching. It just happens that it has taken us Protestants this long to remember that we need that help from these early Fathers. We need encouragement, not incredulity, to continue our studies in the Fathers. They are, after all, our Fathers too.

Peace,
Phil

Patristic Roundup- January 4-10, 2007

It was another busy week in the patristics garden! Wow! I never realized just how much patristic content there actually was out there.

Enjoy the offerings this week!

Articles

Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers features a brief review of N.T. Wright's new book on Judas, links to a radio broadcast featuring Saint Synalecta, a brief review of Steven Shoemaker's book on the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption.

Danny Garland on Irish-Catholic and Dangerous quotes Cardinal Newman on importance of the Fathers in his conversion to Catholicism, St. John Chrysothom on the Magi, St. Gregory of Nazianzus on the Baptism of the Lord, and St. Cyprian on praying constantly. . Wow, that is a lot of excerpts in one week!

William Weedon on Weedon's Blog offers Patristic Quotes of the Day by Prudentius, Maximos the Confessor, Maximos again and another on Maximos.

Sean Gallagher on The Criterion Online Blog asks the question Who is a Church Father?. The answer? Well, read on.

Father Tim Finagan on The hermeneutic of continuity (now there is a title for a blog!) gives a guide to the first four centuries of Christianity from a Catholic perspective including some excellent book references.

runandsew on The Catholic Answers forum asks did the Fathers teach Sola Scriptura. There's lots of references and lots of conversation.

TheGodFearingFiddle reflects on the Nicene Creed, the term Catholic and who gets to use it. . He continues his discussion in Were the Church Fathers Papists?

Philosophy on LJ offers a paper on Evolution, Patristics and the Philosophy of Science.

It seems to be the week for guides on how to get started on patristics. Derek the Anglican on haligweorc offers us his suggestions on how to get started on reading the Fathers, from, predictably, an Anglican perspective. Derek follows up with a guide to getting started with patristic hermeneutics.

Adrian Murdoch on Bread and Circuses features an article on the Christian poet Caelius Sedulius

A Hatfield on Trinitarian Life features a review of the Nestorian controversy about the Theotokos

Julie on Julie Unplugged has quotes Richard Hooper with a rather different opinion about the Virgin Mary. Hooper argues that the Virgin Mary was a sop given to women as compensation for Mary Magdalene's loss of apostolic status and the denigration of eternal feminine images in Christianity.

SELplana declares that the Apostolic Fathers didn't believe in the divinity of Christ. I wonder, are they reading the same Apostolic Fathers?

John Collins on 37 lissenfield offers some reflections on Bart Ehrmann's Misquoting Jesus



Trail mix offers reflections on the theological diversity of the patristic era

Rick Brannan on ricoblog starts to reflect on Clayton Jeffrey's book on the Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament and lets us know about an download of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology's 1905 publication on the Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament.. Two more books I have to add to my ever lengthening reading list!

Julie at Happy Catholic finds her extended family among the Church Fathers, thanks to Mike Aquilina's book, The Fathers of the Church.

Peace,
Phil

Sulpicius Severus, Life of Martin 3

Happy Epiphany!

Well, okay, I'm a little late, but Epiphany is frequently translated to the nearest Sunday at my church, so close enough.

This week, I'm posting the third installment of my St. Martin series. In this passage, we start into the narrative per se with an account of St. Martin's childhood. It struck me as I was starting to work on the translation that it was vaguely appropriate to read this passage today. After all, Martin was born to pagan parents, so it is oddly appropriate on this day on which Gentiles first worshipped Jesus we begin the tale of Martin's early conversion.

So, let us begin.

Martin was born in Sabaria, a town in Pannonia, but he was raised in Ticinium in Italy. His parents were not of the lowest class in the world’s ranking, but were pagans (2) His father was, at first, a soldier; then, a military tribune. Martin himself pursued a military career in his youth among the imperial cavalry guards under Emperor Constantius. Then, he served under Julian Caesar. He did not serve however, of his own will because, from nearly his first years, the holy infancy of the famous boy aspired to divine service instead. (3) When he was ten years old, he fled, without the permission of his parents, to the church and demanded to be made a catechumen. (4) Then, he was converted completely to work of God in an amazing way. When he was 12 years old, he desired to be a hermit. He would have performed the appropriate vows, if the infirmity of age had not prevented him. Nevertheless, his spirit was always intent on the monastery or the church and he, at his young age, meditated on what he vowed and later fulfilled. (5)After an edict was published by the emperors that the sons of veterans should be enrolled into military service, his father, who begrudged him his happy ways, betrayed him when he was fifteen years old. He was seized, chained and entangled in military service. He was content with one slave as a companion whom he, the master, served in turn to such an extent that he would quite often remove his slave’s shoes and clean them. They would eat together and Martin would serve him rather more often. (6) For nearly three years before his baptism, he served in the army. Nevertheless, he was free from those faults with which that type of men are accustomed to be associated. (7) His kindness to his fellow soldiers was great , his love astonishing, and his patience and humility beyond human measure. There was no need to praise his thrift which he practiced to such a degree that, at that time, he was thought to be a monk, not a solider. For this reason, he won over all his fellow soldiers so that they adored him with astonishing affection. (8) Although he was not yet reborn in Christ, he performed good works like a candidate for baptism in by helping those who suffering hardship, bringing help to the miserable, feeding the needy and clothing the naked. He held back nothing from his military pay except for his daily meals. Since, he was not an inattentive listener to the Gospel, he was not accustomed to think about tomorrow.

Commentary:

Martin's origins are interesting because it is clear almost from the first sentence that his family was tied to the military. Certainly, one of the major recruiting grounds in the fourth century for the Roman army was border districts such as the region of Pannonia. His father clearly rose through the ranks, so this would suggest that he did not start among the privileged elite who would have had tribuneships from their youth. Yet, as Severus points out, having attained this rank, his family could be regarded as having some social distinction.

The law enrolling veterans' sons automatically into the army is likely one of a series of edicts dating from the 320s and continuing for the next few centuries which attempted to maintain the size of the Roman army in the face of widespread attempts by the sons of the military class to escape service. This has to be seen in the light of the growing burdens of the Roman state on its people and the consequence attempts to evade the onerous service imposed by the state. The preferred status of Christianity in the empire at this time opened yet another means to escape these demands: service in the Church. Presumably, this law was designed to close this door. The fact that it was repeatedly re-enacted over the next few centuries would suggest it didn't work very well

Martin's early encounters with Christianity are most notably for his early zeal. Indeed, his zeal is so great that Martin's story includes certain veiled allusions to Jesus' own life, especially in that, at the age of 10, he flees to the Church and demands to be made a catechumen (comparable to Jesus in the temple?). Similarly, his attempt to take vows as a hermit at 12 shows a similar degree of precocious faith. This is all the more remarkable because Martin was born and, presumably, raised pagan. Indeed, we can conclude that Martin's father remained pagan because he seems to have seen the law enforcing military service on veterans' sons to be an opportunity to separate Martin from the Church. It doesn't work, but the opportunity would have been tempting.

Martin's military career is, of course, striking. There is, for instance, no mention of actual fighting which, given the instability of the Danube border in the 340s and 350s, is a little surprising Both the Emperors Constans and Constantius fought several campaigns in the region against German and Sarmatian invasions; not to mention the revolt of Magnentius in which the decisive battle was fought at Mursa in Illyricum in 353 AD. We get no impression of Martin fighting in these battles, although he must have in some.

The image we have is rather of a soldier in peace, exercising Christian virtues. Likely, Martin (and Severus!) had in mind the advice of John the Baptist to soldiers that they should 'not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages.’ (Luke 3, 14. NRSV). Martin, in these areas, is exemplary, but he goes farther and applies the standard of monasticism to his behavior both to his own slave and his fellow soldiers. Remember he still is a catechumen, so has not been baptized, but he is acting in the way that one would expect him to before his baptism. Given the temptations of the military life, this standard is all the more remarkable.

This image of Martin as soldier strikes me as interesting because of my own pacifist leanings. What fascinates me here is the implied contrast between the soldier of Christ like Martin and the regular, everyday soldier. With Martin, there is no violence or power, but rather there is a stress, as is appropriate to the soldier of Christ, on the Christian virtues: humility, service and faith. One wonders if we all acted like that soldier of Christ whether wars would even be possible.

Anyway, what do you think?

Peace,
Phil

Patristic Roundup- December 28th, 2006-January 3, 2007

Happy New Year and welcome back to the Patristic Roundup.

It was a bit busier week in the patristic garden, sparked, I think, by lots of saints days and post-Christmas apologetic hangovers. Here is my sample of the week that was in patristics.

Mike Aquilina at The Way of the Fathers has a look at the Old New Ages, the Manichees, on the occasion of New City Presses' new release on Augustine's writings on the Manicheans. On the occasion of the feast day of St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzus, Mike provides a series of excellent links for these Cappadocian Fathers. Mike also reports on ancient contraceptive techniques and the Father's condemnation of them.

A Hatfield on Trinitarian Life discusses whether it is appropriate to throw around charges of Nestorianism without careful consideration. Good point. We are sometimes too quick to conflate confusion with heresy.

Brother Theobad, with the help of an appropriate quote from Origen, makes the excellent point that the Fathers knew a few things about spiritual warfare before that phrase was every even thought of.

Integritus on the Catholic Answer Forum asks the perplexing question (to Roman Catholics at least) of why Protestants want to quote the Church Fathers. The discussion which follows is a good one. Still, I think I hear the whispering of a blog entry on this blog. Stay tuned!

William Weedon posts another Patristic Quote and again.

William St. Reflections considers the twin influences of Judaizing and Gnosticism on the formation of the Father's coherent view of both the Old and New Testaments.

James Swan at Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics takes on a Roman Catholic take on the establishment of the canon in 382 AD.

Walter Snyder at Ask the Pastor deals with the question of the Lost Books of the Bible.

Conference Daily Updates features a review of John Cassian's Conferences in the Ancient Christian Writers series.

Stavros on My Greek Odyssey gives an excellent overview of the Greek influence on Judaism and Christianity from a rather Eastern Orthodox perspective.

Tiber Jumper on Crossed the Tiber reports on the Theotokos, Nestorius and the Council of Ephesus.

Brandon on Siris features St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzus including a passage from St. Basil's On the Holy Spirit (hey, I almost bought that today!)

Mark Christian on Transfigure Baton Rogue comments on R.R. Reno's excellent article on the revival of patristics in theologyin November's edition of First Things.

Stewart Rutledge on Fancy Latin Title struggles with Who is Church Father?

Christian Husband on Sacrifice my Sexuality reflects on the canon, the Fathers and biblical interpretation.

Rick Brannon on ricoblog resumes his translation series on the Didache (yah!!!), translating Didache 10

On the ninth day of Christmas Danny Garland on Irish-Catholic and Dangerous gave to me quotes from Saint Basil and St. Gregory Naziansus on the occasion of their feast day. On the tenth day of Christmas, Danny gave to me St. John Chrysosthom on abortion.

The Historical Vision of Eusebius of Caesarea

From time to time, I feel like I need to apologize for my interest in Eusebius and the other ecclesiastical historians. I suspect that that is my classics training coming out in a rather unhelpful way because God knows that classicists tend to turn up their noses at these writers. At best, they are mines of information. At worst, they are the worst kind of tendentious historians-inaccurate and self-interested. That is a difficult mindset to shake and, while I dismiss it as entirely unfair, I think that a lot of our problems as Christian historians come from the contortions we try to make in order to appear objective and scholarly to a world view which believes that God has no place in history. Yet, if we believe that God was made man in Jesus Christ at a particular time (c. 4 BC-AD 33)and in a particular place (Judaea), we can't ignore the challenge history has us. If we do, we run the risk of forgetting the Incarnation and all the nasty particularities of being Christian.

So, when I come to Eusebius, I recognize, for all his faults, a historian who is trying to make sense of Christian history. He is, of course, very clear about his agenda. His project is to record church history from the apostles to his own time in such a way as to uphold 'orthodox' faith. As a result, he is concerned with the names of the successors to the apostles, how the Church was formed and governed, those who defended the faith, those who departed from the faith and the persecutions (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (EH), 1,1.). This very clear apologetic intent to Eusebius' history is, of course, precisely what bothers non-Christian scholars. Since he is so clear about his apologetic intent, how could he be objective? How can we trust that he isn't twisting his evidence?

The obvious answer to that is that we can't. Eusebius was, as he is acutely aware, the first Christian to write this kind of history and he preserves an immense amount of material which has not survived in any other way. Of course, we can do studies on the bits that coincide with surviving documents and those efforts, I believe, have shown that he tends to quote accurately. Yet, he is hardly objective.

Mind you, the obvious answer to that charge is to suggest our hypothetical critics please find an example in modern historiography, much less ancient historiography of objectivity. That is, of course, a post-modern dodge, but, like many post-modern dodges, it has some real validity. If anyone reads ancient historians with any degree of attention, we find that even the best of them, (Thucydides, Tacitus) are hardly objective. They may try hard to be fair, but objectivity is simply not even a concern.

Still, what struck me in my most recent re-reading of Eusebius' passage is his second preface (Eusebius, EH 5,3)in which he states:

Other writers of historical works have confined themselves to the written tradition of victories in wars, of triumphs over enemies, of the exploits of generals and the valour of soldiers, men stained with blood and countless murders for the sake of children and country and other possessions; but it is wars most peaceful waged for the very peace of the soul, and men who therein have been valiant for truth rather than for country, and for piety rather than their dear ones, that our record of those who order their lives according to God will inscribe on everlasting monuments: it is the struggles of the athletes of piety and their valour which braved so much, trophies won from demons, and victories against unseen adversaries, and the crowns at the end of all, that it will proclaim for everlasting remembrance.

On one level, this is Eusebius' answer to traditional historiography. He outlines the interests of the historians of his day and clearly places them as inferior to the struggles he sets out in his ecclesiastical history. In doing this, he is in line with the Gospels which proclaim that the most important thing in life is not what the powers and principalities assume: power and war. Rather it is service to God. Here Eusebius is defending implicitly his rather lengthy exposition of the martyrs of Lyons, but he is also setting out principles about what is and is not important in Christian history. The struggles to gain power in this world are not the primary interest for the Christian historian for the simple reason that these struggles involve the illusion that we can have power without God. The Christian historian may have to acknowledge this illusion as a historical force, but he/she cannot assume that his/her subject matter rests in so confining a direction. Rather we must seek out the hand of God in all the odd places as well as the usual places. If Jesus revealed himself in weakness, can we not expect God hand to be found in obscure and seemingly insignificant places sometimes?

I know, of course, my non-Christian readers will shake their heads at me for those comments. Fair enough, I guess. Yet, I ask for the same forbearance that you give your other apologetically minded (or is that politically-minded?) colleagues. I would suggest that Christian historiography deserves a place in the intellectual life of the post-modern West as any other historiography. Questions of truth remain, of course, but a Christian mind-set does not need to be a hindrance in answering those questions. It may even be a help.

Peace,
Phil

Patristic Roundup-Dec. 21-27, 2006

Welcome to the second week of the Patristic Roundup!

I noticed a couple of things this week. First, predictably, mentions of the Fathers were frequent this week, largely because of the drearily predictable, if necessary, blog entries (pro and con) about Christmas. Depending on your point of view, the Fathers are either villains of the piece (co opting nice innocent pagan customs) or heroes (pillaging the Egyptians, as Augustine would say).

Second, I've noticed in the little time that I've been posting this roundup that most of these mentions were drive-bys, so I chose not to include them. It seems that we are still at the stage where it is educated to mention the Fathers, but not to have read them. Still, mentioning them is something.

Yet, my hope with this roundup is that more people will be encouraged to read the Fathers at first hand and see how good theologians the Fathers were.

Patristic Articles:

Al Hsu at The Suburban Christian reports on a talk by Martin Marty on the diversity in the ordering of churches in the early Christian period. Not only do we get a good idea of the talk and the discussion which follows, we also get some interesting commentary on the difference between theologians and church historians. I also liked Al's self-identification as an evangelical mutt. Mind you, so am I.

The Gimmie My Bullets blog offers one of the many discussions of the December 25th date for Christmas. I hadn't realized that Julius Africanus had established the date in the late second century AD. I must track that reference.

The Dyspraxic Fundamentalist on his Patristic Page posts a passage from Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation. And just in time for Christmas!

Danny Garland on Irish Catholic and Dangerous posts a quote from Saint Aphrahate on Patristic Typology

William Whedon continues to post Patristic Quotes of the Day on Whedon's Blog.

Mike Aquilina on the Way of the Fathers, quotes a review of his book, The Fathers of the Church, by Craig Meyer which includes an excellent discussion on the importance to get our story out in the face of the challege offered by the Da Vinci Code's version of early Christian history. Mike, then, follows up this post with a brilliant post on Christmas and its importance in the Christian life.

albert m on Christian Book Reviews discusses Jaroslav Pelican's The Christian Tradition Volume 3. which starts in the later patristic era and continues into the mediaeval tradition.

John Lyons reports on the conference on the Reception of the Bible in Late Antiquity held at Concordia University, Montreal in October of this year. Enjoy!

Jim Davila on PaleoJudaica posts some sensible comments by Peter Stanford on the whole Gospel of Judas debacle. . On Christmas Day, he helpfully quoted the earliest extant reflection on the star in Matthew's birth story from Ignatius of Antioch

Dim Bulb at The Divine Lamp features a catena of quotations from St. Justin and St. Irenaeus on Mary from The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries by Father Thomas Livy

Prior Peter at the Daily Bread blog favourably reviews Ramsay MacMullin's book on the 4th century ecumenical councils, Voting About God, as one of the best books of 2006.

Patrick O'Hanigan at The Paragraph Farmer, one of the many Catholic bloggers to comment on Pope Benedict's Christmas message, features the link between Papal and Patristic insight.

Brian Leport comments on James, Paul and the prophet Agabus in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History.

Gentile for Judaism takes on the virgin birth and the patristic argument that it was necessary for Jesus (Yeshua) to be the Messiah.

That is it for this week. If you should encounter an article that I've missed, please pass it along.

Peace,
Phil

A Christmas Reflection from Mike Aquilina

I just came across this amazing reflection by Mike Aquilina at The Way of the Fathers. Run, don't walk to that reflection, if you want to be reminded in a particularly meaningful way of why we celebrate Christmas Day.

Merry Christmas, again, to all! And to all, a good night!

Peace,
Phil

Merry Christmas

Well, Christmas is nigh and I doubt if I'm going to post again between then and now. So, to all my readers, Merry Christmas! I should have a suitable patristics quote, but, really, Scripture trumps the Fathers, so...

Isaiah 9,6-7 (NIV)

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this.

Peace,
Phil

Sulpicius Severus, Life of Martin, 1

Here is the second installment of the Life of Martin. In this section, Severus gives us a second introduction to the work. That may strike some readers as odd, but it seems the preface may have been a letter to Desiderius as part of the package including the manuscript. It certainly is written in a epistolary style.

(1)The majority of mortals, vainly dedicated to zeal for worldly glory, seek what they believe will be the eternal memory of their name, if they elucidate the lives of famous men in their writing. (2) In any case, although these things do not bring eternal fruit, they do bring the trifling fruit of the hope they conceived. They preserve their own memory, but to no purpose, since their readers are roused in a great degree to emulate the examples of the great men placed before them. Nevertheless, this concern of theirs in no way pertains to the blessed, eternal life. (3) In what way does the glory of their own writings which will die with the world benefit them? What reward did posterity bring to one who read about Hector fighting and Socrates philosophizing, since it would not only be stupid to imitate them, but madness not to attack them zealously? In truth, those who think that human life depends on present actions give their hopes to fables and their souls to the grave. (4) They believe that they must preserve themselves in the memory of men alone, although it is the duty of people to seek eternal life rather than eternal memory, not by writing or fighting or philosophizing, but by living piously, in a holy manner and religiously. (5) Indeed, that human error which is handed down in literature is so powerful that one would assuredly find many imitators of that useless philosophy or that stupid virtue. (6) Hence, I think I will win the reward for my work, if I write fully about the life of that most blessed man who will certainly become an example to others so that those reading this will surely be aroused to true wisdom, heavenly service and divine virtue. We also make plans for our benefit so that we will not wait for the useless memorials of people, but rather the eternal reward by God. Although we did not live in such a way that we were able to be an example to others, nevertheless, we gave this work so that the person who should be imitated was not concealed. (7) In this way, I shall begin to write about the life of Saint Martin; both what he did before he became bishop and what he did during his episcopacy, even if I was unable to discover everything about him. Those things which he alone knew are not known because he did not seek praise from people, but, as much as he could, he had wished to hide all his virtues. (8) We also omitted many things which we discovered about him because we believed we said enough, if we just noted his superiority. . At the same time, we had to consider our readers so as not to put them off with the mass of details. (9) But I beg those who about to read this book believe what is said and don’t think that I wrote anything unless I researched and proved it. Otherwise, I would have preferred to be silent than to speak lies.

Commentary:

This passage moves away from the self-effacement of the previous passage, but continues to explore the ideas around fame that Severus already alluded to. The contrast between worldly fame and heavenly glory is, of course, a standard one in patristic writers. The reason for that is that they are reacting to the desire of pagan authors for eternal fame which we can see in Thucydides (whose history of the Peloponnesian War (5th century BC) was designed to last forever) for one. Eternal fame belongs, as Severus points out, to the world, so is not a sufficient motivation for doing anything, much less writing.

Severus also nods to the biographical tradition which flourished throughout the Roman period. Biography, of course, emerges as a genre in the course of the Hellenistic Age (c. 330s BC), partly because of the movement to more autocratic political systems and partly because of the greater interest in character engendered by Plato and Aristotle (especially the latter). The genre is relentlessly didactic and moral, even in its pagan form. The intention is serve as a moral example to the presence by highlighting the good, the bad and the ugly in the lives of famous men. The biographies of Plutarch in Greek, and Cornelius Nepos and Suetonius (most of which are lost), are excellent examples of this genre.

Yet, there is something fundamentally different about hagiography (the Christianized version of biography). The didactic tone is retained, clearly, but the values are fundamentally different. There is no longer concern with the 'civic' virtues or the lure of fame, but rather the focus is on the Christian virtues and holy living. The culture clash between Christian and pagan culture can be seen here, especially in Severus' disavowal of worldly values in favour of heavenly ones in his account of Saint Martin.

Yet, despite the bad name that hagiography has received in the last few hundred years, Severus is careful to enunciate his historical principles. He asserts that he has researched his subject and that he has done is level best to make sure that what he has included is based on reliable evidence. A cynical person might say that these protestations are formulaic and perhaps Severus protesteth too much. Yet, we do have to remember that Severus is slightly younger contemporary of Saint Martin, who knew Martin and those who knew Martin intimately. He, certainly, had access to information. That isn't a guarantee for Severus' reliability, but it should cause pause for the cynic.

This is an openly didactic work. Saint Martin is meant to be an example to us of a life of Christian virtue. We'll see how that begins to play out in the next installment in a couple of weeks.

Peace,
Phil

Patristic Roundup- Dec. 6-13

I'm expermenting with a new feature on this blog: a weekly update of who wrote what on a patristic topic. My criterion is that the major part of the article deals with patristics. My aim here is to track what is happening week to week out in blogsophere and see what people are saying about patristics. Perhaps it might even make nominations for future Patristic Carnivals easier, if we know better what is out there.

New Blogs

This week, I've stumbled across the Patristic Quotes of the day provided intermitently by Wheden's blog. Also, in the new (or perhaps, newly discovered) category is The Patristic Page by the Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, who features translations of various passages by patristic authors.

Patristic Articles

Jonathon on Avdat posts some reflections on the Dormition of Mary, sparked by running into the St. Vladimir Press' collection of Orthodox sermons on the topic.

H Kent Craig from Kent's Chroncile, a self-described Gnostic Christian sings the praises of the National Geographic special on the Gospel of Judas. Well, there's always one in a crowd.

Mike Aquilina from Way of the Fathers reports on a revival of Coptic monasticism which, among other things, has given great impetus to the efforts to preserve the Coptic patristic tradition. Mike also recalls the words of the late Pope John Paul II on why we should read the Fathers

D.W Congdon on The Fire and the Rose examines the theology of the Virgin birth through the ages, starting with Ignatius of Antioch.

Molly at Adventures in Mercy has started a series on the Fathers and women. This week, she's posted on Augustine on a Woman's place

Michael Liccione on Sacramentum Vitae denounces theological slogans, most of which have some close patristic parallels.

Ian at Ruminations by the Lake, tries to settle the argument that the Trinity is pagan and only dates from the fourth century by appealing to Ante-Nicine Fathers. In so doing, he provides us with an excellent catena of Ante-Nicene Fathers' comments on the Trinity

Paul Gregory Almes at incarnatus est posts a quotation of Pope Leo I on the incarnation...just in time for Christmas.

Benedict for Babies

My wife likes to tease me about the odd times and places in which I read Church Fathers: Polycarp by the pool (at Palm Springs during March Break one year), John of Damascus among Leibovitchers, or Eusebius while breast feeding. She suggested Origen for oil changes yesterday as I was looking for reading material for my wait at the Mr. Lube near our place (I actually took Eusebius there also). I suspect some satire in this last suggestion.

So, it probably doesn't come as a surprise that I brought a Church Father or two in my bag to the hospital (not, I hasten to add, into the operating room where my baby was delivered). Given the amount of waiting time we had with an attempted induction, lots of tests, a few false alarms and a postponed Caesarian, I was glad to have the reading material.

My choice of books was a little unusual on one level. I found myself gravitating towards monastic works such as Athanasius' Life of Antony and The Rule of St. Benedict. But, really, my book choices do make sense and not only in my mind. There is a small sub-culture out there of families who find inspiration from St. Benedict's Rule, for one, because cenobitic monasteries and families share very similar concerns.

So, when we see St. Benedict announcing that the point of his Rule is

to open a school for God's service, in which we hope nothing harsh or oppressive will be directed. For preserving charity or correcting faults, it may be necessary at times, by reason of justice, to be slightly more severe. Do not fear this and retreat, for the path to salvation is long and the entrance is narrow

As parents, we have to admit that, if we could do half as well, perhaps we will manage to rear our children in the Lord in a positive and attractive manner. The Benedictine monastery is, at the end of the day, interested in nurturing and guiding the members of that community in the faith and virtues necessary to a Christian life. There is a real focus on the formation of the individual monk in Christian virtues, but within a communal setting in which all the members of the community work (wittingly or not) to move everyone else along in virtue. It is, frequently, in communal life that we Christians grow. Amid the messiness, the annoyances and joys of living together, our rough edges can be hewn off and we can start seeing Christ in others.

It is this vision of Christian community which, I think, is what resonates with me. In a sense, what we hope to create as parents is a family in which we can nurture and encourage the development of our children in the faith that we firmly believe will lead to salvation. We hope to present our faith and encourage the growth of Christian in a way that is not oppressive or harsh. To do that, we have to find a manner of living together which we can offer Christian faith as the hope and the support it is.

O course, Benedict offers challenges. How do we balance work, family time and family prayer in our family? Everyone struggles with this, but Benedict doesn't let us off lightly. Our work grounds us in the here and now and is a gift to God. If we would realize that than both our impatience at having to work and our sense that work is more important than anything else can't stand (isn't the one given better than the gift?). Our family time allows us a chance to see Christ in each other, even when we're displeased with each other. Family prayer should bind this all together, but how do we manage that in the face of conflicting schedules and energies? There are no easy answers, but St. Benedict pushes us to finding the balance in our life that we need.

I can't answer any of those questions nor do I think that many Benedictines can in their own lives. Yet, St. Benedict makes an excellent guide for us as we embark on our new adventures as parents.

Peace,
Phil

Sulpicius Severus-Life of St. Martin- Preface

Now that the baby excitement has eased down and that the Patristics Carnival has been posted, it is time for me to get on with my promised series on Sulpicius Severus's Life of Saint Martin, Bishop and Confessor (Yes, that is the full title). Adrian Murdoch on Bread and Circuses has saved me the work of a detailed introduction to Severus, so I won't concentrate on this. A few brief words on the actual work, I think, are warranted.

The Life of St. Martin was probably written shortly before St. Martin's death around AD 397. This saint's life was considered, despite Sulpicius Severus' coy denials, a literary masterpiece and exercised a major influence on the Latin hagiograhic tradition. The subject, St. Martin, Bishop of Tours, is portrayed as being a true man of God, whose faith and holiness is demonstrated by his abundant miracles. Born in the 330s, he belonged a military family and was compelled to serve in the Roman army until AD 356. As bishop and monk, St. Martin found himself heavily involved in promoting monasticism in the West, evangelizing the countryside around Tours and involving himself in the ecclesiastical controversies in the West including Arianism (as a protege of St. Hilary of Poitiers) and the Priscillianist controversy.

The first installment of my translation will be the preface to the whole work. My general procedure will be to post the translation and, then, a brief informal commentary on the passage. Please feel free to criticize or comment on either translation or commentary.

Preface: Severus, to his very dear brother, Desiderius

Truly, my like-minded brother, I had decided to conceal in its own pages this little book which I wrote about the life of Saint Martin and to confine it within my domestic walls. Since I am very weak by nature, I was trying to avoid human judgement so that, as is likely, my rather uncouth style should not displease my readers and I should not be judged worthy of everyone’s reproach because I rashly took up material which ought to have been in justice reserved for skilled writers. But, I cannot deny anything you often ask for. For what is there that I would not bestow on you for the sake of your love, even at cost of my disgrace? (2) Nevertheless, I give this book to you because of your promise on the clear understanding that I think it ought not be shown to anyone Yet, I fear that you will serve as a door for it and what was sent out once cannot be called back. (3) If it should happen that you see it is read by other people, you will demand indulgence from its readers so that they should ponder the subject matter rather than the words and bear it calmly, if its defective style should perhaps injure their ears. (4) After all, the Kingdom of God does not depend on eloquence, but on faith. Let them even recall that salvation for the world was not foretold by orators, but by fishermen, since, if oratory had been useful, certainly our Lord could have excelled in it. (5) For, when I first applied my mind to writing, I considered it a sin to conceal the virtues of so great a man, so I decided in my own mind that I should not blush at my grammatical errors. I had never attained great skill in these matters and, even if I had perhaps once tasted these studies, I would have lost all of my skill through long neglect. (6) But, nevertheless, not to linger on so painful a defence, if it seems good to you, let this book be published with the name suppressed. Erase the title on the front as much as you can so that the page may be silent. It is enough to let it speak to the subject matter, not to the author.

Commentary:

To start with, I should note that I haven't had a chance to nail down who the addressee, Desiderius. I'm not even sure we know, but a search of the PLRE (Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire) might turn something up.

I think the noticable thing here is the very commonly used pretence of literary incompetance which characterizes this preface. In itself, this is not an uncommon introduction to a literary work, partly because, even among pagan writers, excessive eloquence was viewed as being slightly suspect. This connects to the distrust we find in philosophy (especially) to the sophists, who were, among other things, rhetoricians whose concern with the manner of speaking was seen as overriding their concern with truth. Plato's animosity to the sophists is only one example of this.

However, Christian writers are even more susceptible to this distrust of literary eloquence. Part of this is a distrust of pagan arts in general, but also the recognition, which Severus alludes to in section 4, that the earliest Christians were not among the literati, nor did they need to be. Many intellectuals even in the 4th century turned up their noses at the writing style of the New Testament (Augustine for one), but the reaction of many Christian writers to this cricismwas to take pride in and imitate their simple and, perhaps, uncouth (meaning non-literary) style. This is not true of all the Fathers, but this disavowal of literary skill remains an important trope in Christian writing in the age of the Fathers.

Of course, Severus is a better writer than he lets on, but his show of modesty is designed to focus attention away from himself and towards the text.

Patristics Carnival-September-November, 2006

Welcome to the first Patristics Carnival!

As usual, my timing for starting a new project is impeccable, what with becoming a new dad amid report card season, but I've done my best to hit the highlights of patristic blogging over the past few months.

I've decided to organize these entries according to the following categories: Introductions to Patristics, Translation, Projects, Applied Patristics, Christian Apocrypha and Patristic News and Article blogs.

Introductions to Patristics

For anyone who has an interest in patristics or even in patristic blogging, the place to start The place I want to start is the same place that many people get started: Mike Aquillina's blog, The Way of the Fathers. Mike's site is a must see for anyone intersted in patristics, partly because his assiduous efforts to post links to others working in the patristics garden and partly because of his own excellent writing. An especially valuable contribution appeared just this month with this Carnival in mind: Meet the Fathers . This cogent post serves as an excellent introduction to why contemporary Christians should read the Fathers.

Translation and the Fathers

Kevin Edgecomb, on his blog, biblicalia, completed his series translating Jerome's Vulgate Prologues, the short introductions to the books of the Bible which Jerome composed in his Vulgate translation. These prologues give us a precious insight into Jerome's mind at the time of this translation and provide us a good insight into the patristic way of reading Scripture. For those of you interested in Biblical Studies as well, these are valuable documents for your consideration!

Rick Brannan, in his ricoblog, continues his ongoing project of translating and commenting on the Didache. So far, he has finished to the chapter on the Eucharist, but there has been a long hiatus between this entry and an anticpated one on Didache 10. Hopefully, we'll see more from Rick on this in the coming months.

Patristic Projects

Father Z, on his blog, What Does Prayer Really Say?, started and completed the Patristics Rosary Project. This project follows the Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary and seeks out patristic passages which relate to the mysteries to which this rosary refers. Father Z deals with each subject by citing patristic parallels as explanations of the scriptural passages central to each mystery and, then, includes his own commentary. This is a tremendously learned series, but well worth reading, even for a Protestant such as myself.

As part of a continuing project started in August, Ben Smith, on the team blog, Thoughts on Antiquity, has been reviewing in detail the canonical lists of the books of the Bible. Starting with the introduction, he has discussed the Marcionite canon, the Muratorian canon, the canon of Origen, part one and part two and part one of the Eusebian canon. This very learned series continues, but is a must read for anyone interested in the development of the canon.

General Patristics
This category are for blog entries which are self-contained entries on blogs which may or may not be full-time patristic blogs. I suspect this category should be much larger and more varied because I think most discussions of patristic authors occur in blogs devoted to theology, Biblical Studies or Church History, but this is what I've managed to find.

Patristic Anglican (who uses the wonderful pseudonym, Death Bredon--shades of Dorothy Sayers!)features an excellent blog entry on Patristic Ecclesiology . His excellent summary of how the Fathers do ecclesiology is illuminating and has many, many applications in the ecclesiastical climate these days. Certainly, the two disputing sides in the Anglican Communion could use a few lessons from the Fathers about ecclesiology!

Phil Harland, in his blog, Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean, has an excellent blog entry on the canon. In Breaking News: Early Christians had no New Testatment, Phil discusses the development of the canon. It is an excellent, short summary of the development of the New Testament.

I hope that it isn't gauche to include yourself in a Carnival, but I'll take that risk. This blog, hyperekperisou, originated as a fairly eclectic Anglican blog, but, since, October of this year (when I overdosed on discussions about the Kigali meeting of African primates in the Anglican Communion), I decided to devote this blog entirely to patristics. Since then, I've been contributing essays which try to make a direct connection between the Father and the theological problems faced by Christians today. An example of this output is my entry on St. John Chrysostom, Headship and the Culture Wars in which I discuss St. John's ideas about marriage with the ongoing ideological debate about headship which continues to rage today.

Roger Pierce, creator of The Tertullian Project website, has joined the team blog, Thoughts on Antiquity. He has contributed several excellent articles to that blog including an excellent review of the scholarship of R.J. Hoffman, who attempts to reconstruct ancient anti-Christian polemical authors such as Porphyry, Celsus and Julian the Apostate. In his entry, Useful books or peddling hate?, Pierce reviews Hoffman's translations of the fragments and raises real questions about the quality of this approach to these lost opponents to Christianity.

Christian Apocrypha

This last quarter saw the launch of the first blog devoted specifically devoted to Apocrypha. This blog, Apocryphicity, focuses especially on gathering information on and discussing Christian Apocrypha, which, thanks to Da Vinci's Code et cetera, has seen such a revival in the last few years. This is an excellent site to keep track of what is happening in this exciting new field.

Jim Davilla's PaleoJudaica site, although devoted primarily to publishing news and information on Ancient Judaism, has also featured several important discussions of Christian Apocrypha. Indeed, Jim caused a bit of a buzz among patristic bloggers with an entry in which when he published the abstract of Louis Painchaud's paper (given at the University of Ottawa, which called into question the National Geographic translation of the Gospel of Judas.

Patristic News and Articles blogs

One of the important elements of creating a sense of community among bloggers who share a common interest is the emergence of one or more blogs which make an effort to keep abrest of what is happening with other bloggers or simply try to disseminate information on the topic. In the emerging patristic blogsphere, we are very lucky to have Mike Aquillina's The Way of the Fathers blog which fulfills this function from a Catholic perspective.

Another useful resource is Rob Bradshaw's Earlychurch.org.uk blog which publishes both public domain and recent articles (with permission of the authors) on patristics and the early Church. This is an excellent resource for those interested in following the academic study of patristics.

Well, that is about as much as I have been able to manage this Carnival. As I finish, I'm fully aware of the deficiencies of this first effort; not enough theology, not much Orthodox representation, not enough academic connections. Still, I hope this will help those of us interested in patristics and who blog on it to get to know each other a little. I also hope that this little carnvial will encourage others to try their hand at patristic blogging with all its rewards.

Any volunteers for the next Patristic Carnival in March?

Peace,
Phil

Newborn news

I thought I would let my readers know our first born child has finally (!) arrived. His name is Ian Richard and was born today. Prayers would, of course, be welcome, but mother and baby are doing well.

Needless to say, I may be a little late with the Patristics Carnvial, but I'll try to get it up this week.

Peace,
Phil

Patristics Carnival-Last Call

I'm afraid I didn't manage a regular entry this week, largely because of baby excitement (my wife has been in and out of the hospital for the last week or so) and report card sesason has prevented me from starting to post my series on Sulpicius Severus' Life of Martin. Mind you, Adrian Murdoch at Bread and Circuses has been doing some good work with Sulpicius Severus, so I offer that as an introduction. He deals with Severus himself, a letter of Severus to Paul the Bishop and Severus and Valentinian I

This week, however, I want to make my last call for nominations for the Patristic Carnival. I've had one or two nominations and have two or three in mind myself, but could use further suggestions. Please send on any other nominations to uperekperisou@yahoo.ca or post a comment here.

Thanks and I still hope, unless my wife is actively having a baby (or just finished), to post the carnival this weekend.

Phil