One of the most hardest problems which the patricist and classicist share is the problem of understanding why Christian was such a problem for their pagan neighbours. After all, paganism could deal with a lot of different gods at the same time. The Romans, for instance, could absorb cults from all over the Empire and not even break a sweat; objecting only where human sacrifice or dangerous extremes in behavior were encouraged. In fact, they could even deal with Judaism which was every bit as adamant on the issue of reserving its worship only its own god. Yet, Christianity presented a problem which unsettled most Romans and, at particular times, encouraged persecutions- first merely local, but later empire-wide. What was it about Christianity which made it so hard for the Romans to live and let live?
This is, of course, an old problem. I'm sure the Christians at the time were wondering why they were such an issue. And, of course, there were plenty of explanations (i.e. the apologists) for why Christians weren't a problem. There are also many, many modern explanations for this unusual Roman policy to the Christians; many of which turn on the problem of how such a 'religiously tolerant' Rome could persecute Christianity in the way it did.
So, these thoughts have been in my head since I started reading Paula Frederiksen's Augustine and the Jews a few weeks back. I'm really only half way through this excellent book and, of course, intend to review it when I finish (perhaps in April). However, in her first two chapters, Dr. Frederiksen deals with this issue with exceptional clarity. In her first chapter, she embarks on an elegant discussion of how pagan religion worked. This is a source of considerable problem for a historian of antiquity because it is all too easy to import our own understanding of (primarily) monotheistic religions and either assume that this worked similarly for pagans for many gods or dismiss the experience of the Romans because it doesn't live up to ours. Twisting our heads around how polytheism works is a major challenge and one that continually needs to be revised as we realize more and as we realize more ways in which we have distorted the evidence by our own religious (or anti-religious) assumptions.
However, I think Frederiksen is right on target when she notes four characteristics of paganism in the Roman period. First, she notes that, in the Roman political system, people encountered a wide diversity of gods because of the sheer size of the area ruled by Rome. Further, this was not because the Romans were religiously 'tolerant' as we would understand it, but rather the fact that Rome ruled many people meant that they also incorporated many gods (p.10). Second, the ancient assumption about the various gods was that they did exist and they needed to be dealt with somehow (p. 10-13)-. This has interesting implications especially because it looks like the relevant question for pagans wasn't whether such and such god existed, but rather how powerful were they and did they need to be brought on one's own side. Third, Frederiksen suggests that piety in the Graeco-Roman world was about honouring one's ancestral gods (p.13) Fourth, the multiplicty of ethnic gods was also balanced by the civic cults and the imperial cults which focused some religious energy towards the wider community and empire (p.13-15.). Given that failure to perform one's religious duties could bring down the wrath of the gods or god on the whole community or empire, it did matter if someone slighted a god. The stakes of renouncing a god or gods didn't just affect one's own life, but the lives of one's neighbours and fellow-citizens.
The implications here, I think, are important for our problem. This is particularly important when we consider points three and four. . Certainly, it explains why Judaism could be tolerated, even after the three major Jewish revolts of the late first and early second centuries AD. While Judaism formally refused to worship the civic and imperial cults (Frederiksen notes that some Jews, at least, disregarded this refusal and did worship the civic and imperial gods), it had the virtue of being an ancestral cult. That is, the Jews could still be described as being pious and doing their bit for the city and empire because they were interceding with their god for the wider community's benefit. Mind you, pagan converts to Judaism weren't off the hook because they were abandoning their ancestral cult and, thus, their civic responsibilities for a foreign cult.
This also explains why the mystery cults weren't an issue either. The mystery cults were always an add-on, so it was understood that one should continue to both one's ancestral gods and the civic/imperial ones. The assumption here continues to be religious pluralism, so nobody (mortal or divine) should be offended by it.
Further, this interpretation explains why Gentile Christians were such a problem. By insisting that a Gentile Christian should stop worshipping their ancestral gods and worship God (in anticipation of an eschatological promise made to the Jews that the nations would worship the God of Israel- p.37), Christianity also opened itself to charges of encouraging atheism, not in the sense of not believing in the gods (early Christians and Jews did believe that the gods existed and had power. It was only that God had more power and right to be worshipped), but in the sense of failing to perform one's ancestral religious duties. This failure meant that, potentially, one's city and empire was at greater risk because of Christian impiety. So, when something did go wrong, Christians were naturally blamed because of their blatant irreligion. This explains both the localized persecutions of the second century and the empire-wide persecutions of both Decius and Diocletian. The persecutors were primarily interested in getting the gods back on their side by encouraging worship of the gods and by punishing those were derelict in their duties, but who were also very aware that the Christians were the main culprits in the dereliction which annoyed the gods. So, in a paradoxical fashion, the persecutions weren't about hurting Christians (it was about getting the gods back on side) and were about punishing Christians (because of their dereliction of duty).
All this makes sense, I think, and I think it an enormous advance over previous interpretations. I suspect that our own post-modern assumptions about foundational belief and pluralism may be distorting some of our understanding here (for instance, did it matter what a pagan believed about their god or gods? what did it mean to decide on a patron god, either individually or in the civic arena?). Yet, its virtue is that this interpretation takes seriously the experienced reality of the Graeco-Romans and explains why that reality had as a result the marginalization and persecution of Christians.
Peace,
Phil
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Call for Submission- Patristic Carnival XXII
Welcome to Patristic Carnival XXII. This month, we're back here at hyperekperissou.
The guidelines remain the same as the Modest Proposal entry back in November, 2006 and my additions in August, 2007.
The last day of submission will be March 31st and the postings will be up by the week of April 6th. .
Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)
Peace,Phil
The guidelines remain the same as the Modest Proposal entry back in November, 2006 and my additions in August, 2007.
The last day of submission will be March 31st and the postings will be up by the week of April 6th. .
Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)
Peace,Phil
Monday, March 23, 2009
On Pears, Sin and St. Augustine
I remember back many moons ago (well, eighteen years ago, anyways), when I was in my first year of my first MA (they are habit forming), I was taking a course called Topics in Mediaeval History. That was a bit of a misnomer. It really was Beginners Intensive Augustine. In one term, we read (at breakneck speed) the Confessions and the City of God. That is a lot of theological meat in a short time, to say the least, even in the washed out and anemic secularized reading of Augustine that this particular history course privileged. When you add that I was in the middle of a major spiritual upheaval which would eventually lead to my coming to faith and joining the Anglican Church of Canada, the impact of Augustine was transformative in a deep way. My wife often jokes that I was the only person she knew who had been converted by Augustine and, if she means in the same way that the example of Victorinus caused Augustine to turn (back) to the Christian God (Confessions, 8,2), she probably is right. There is no doubt that the example of St. Augustine informed my conversion and continues to affect the way that I think about my faith. I am, at the end of the day, an Augustinian (albeit in a Protestant mode) and proud of it.
The memory of this class came back to me a few weeks ago, as I was reading the famous passage from the second book of the Confessions which deals with Augustine's gratuitous and sophmoric theft of pears. I remember my colleagues were inclined to either trivialize this passage or reflect on Augustine's clearly neurotic psyche. I always thought they had the wrong end of the stick and my re-reading of this passage confirms me in that opinion.
Here is the passage in question (my translation)
Certainly, your law and your law, which is written on the hearts of people and which iniquity itself does not destroy, punishes theft. For what thief endures another thief calmly? Not even a rich thief endures another one compelled by want. I wanted to steal and I did it, compelled by no need unless an impoverishment and aversion to justice and the baggage of iniquity. I stole that which was available in abundance for me and much better than what I was seeking in theft. Nor did I wish to enjoy the thing, but rather I wanted to enjoy the theft and sin itself. There was, near our vines, a pear tree, laden with fruits, but which did not have an enticing shape or taste. In the dead of night, we, the most good-for-nothing youths, hurried to shake the pears down and carry them off. We had prolonged our game in a pestilential manner in the open space. We carried off from there a huge load (of pears) not for our own meal, but for feeding to pigs, although we ate some of them, as long as what was pleasing was done by us not what was permitted. Behold, my heart. Behold, my heart, which you pitied in deepest pit. Behold my heart tells you what it was seeking there, that I should be gratuitously evil. There was no cause of my evil except evil. It was foul, and I loved it. I love to destroy. I loved my fault, not that for which I was faulty, but I loved my fault. Foul soul, leaping from your firmament into destruction, not seeking anything through shame, but shame itself.
Powerful stuff and, perhaps, it is safer to domesticate it by dismissing the occasion for this passion as something trivial and unimportant. What a to-do about adolescent stupidity? Sure, it was theft, but who really cares about a few dozen inedible pears thrown to a bunch of pigs, who probably would end up with them anyway? Isn't Augustine just being morbid post facto?
This attitude, however, entirely misses Augustine's point. Augustine really isn't this concerned with the pears per se, but, rather, he is more concerned about the state of his soul. That is, the theft was less worrying than the sheer willfulness and desire to do wrong which served as the motivation for his sinful actions. As elsewhere in the Confessions, Augustine highlights what looks like a trivial episode in his life, not because he is morbid or neurotic, but because these episodes demonstrate something about his own character and his predilection to sin. This revelation of character through seemingly trivial incidents is ancient biography at its best, so it is harsh to criticize Augustine's choice of self-revealing episodes, when any biographer worth his name in the ancient period would choose similar incidents to demonstrate the lives of their subjects.
What is more, I think the common reaction of my classmates also implied a serious misunderstanding of what the sin on which Augustine focuses on throughout the Confessions actually was. In contemporary North America, we tend to view sin as being a discreet, evil action for which we repent or not depending on whether we think it wrong or not. Augustine, while concerned about discreet action, is more interested in sin as a disturbance in human nature and a disturbed will. What moves Augustine to his passionate repentance in this passage is a recognition of the disposition of sin working its way into his youthful heart in such a way that it caused him to prefer evil (theft) over good. This can be demonstrated by the sheer gratuitousness of his theft and his revelling in the sin that he reveals in this passage.
Ultimately, what this passage tells me is that we all can get to the point where we prefer evil to good, especially when we begin to move away from God. Sin can be very enticing- so much so that we may well pursue it to our own destruction. What Augustine provides in this seemingly trivial theft of a few pears isn't his neurosis, but the anatomy of a human heart turning towards sin. Yet, what Augustine also knew when he wrote the Confessions, and what I, ultimately, discovered those many years ago, God is even more powerful than the power of sin and the weakness of our will. Nothing separates us from God and not even, if we are willing, ourselves.
Peace,
Phil
The memory of this class came back to me a few weeks ago, as I was reading the famous passage from the second book of the Confessions which deals with Augustine's gratuitous and sophmoric theft of pears. I remember my colleagues were inclined to either trivialize this passage or reflect on Augustine's clearly neurotic psyche. I always thought they had the wrong end of the stick and my re-reading of this passage confirms me in that opinion.
Here is the passage in question (my translation)
Certainly, your law and your law, which is written on the hearts of people and which iniquity itself does not destroy, punishes theft. For what thief endures another thief calmly? Not even a rich thief endures another one compelled by want. I wanted to steal and I did it, compelled by no need unless an impoverishment and aversion to justice and the baggage of iniquity. I stole that which was available in abundance for me and much better than what I was seeking in theft. Nor did I wish to enjoy the thing, but rather I wanted to enjoy the theft and sin itself. There was, near our vines, a pear tree, laden with fruits, but which did not have an enticing shape or taste. In the dead of night, we, the most good-for-nothing youths, hurried to shake the pears down and carry them off. We had prolonged our game in a pestilential manner in the open space. We carried off from there a huge load (of pears) not for our own meal, but for feeding to pigs, although we ate some of them, as long as what was pleasing was done by us not what was permitted. Behold, my heart. Behold, my heart, which you pitied in deepest pit. Behold my heart tells you what it was seeking there, that I should be gratuitously evil. There was no cause of my evil except evil. It was foul, and I loved it. I love to destroy. I loved my fault, not that for which I was faulty, but I loved my fault. Foul soul, leaping from your firmament into destruction, not seeking anything through shame, but shame itself.
Powerful stuff and, perhaps, it is safer to domesticate it by dismissing the occasion for this passion as something trivial and unimportant. What a to-do about adolescent stupidity? Sure, it was theft, but who really cares about a few dozen inedible pears thrown to a bunch of pigs, who probably would end up with them anyway? Isn't Augustine just being morbid post facto?
This attitude, however, entirely misses Augustine's point. Augustine really isn't this concerned with the pears per se, but, rather, he is more concerned about the state of his soul. That is, the theft was less worrying than the sheer willfulness and desire to do wrong which served as the motivation for his sinful actions. As elsewhere in the Confessions, Augustine highlights what looks like a trivial episode in his life, not because he is morbid or neurotic, but because these episodes demonstrate something about his own character and his predilection to sin. This revelation of character through seemingly trivial incidents is ancient biography at its best, so it is harsh to criticize Augustine's choice of self-revealing episodes, when any biographer worth his name in the ancient period would choose similar incidents to demonstrate the lives of their subjects.
What is more, I think the common reaction of my classmates also implied a serious misunderstanding of what the sin on which Augustine focuses on throughout the Confessions actually was. In contemporary North America, we tend to view sin as being a discreet, evil action for which we repent or not depending on whether we think it wrong or not. Augustine, while concerned about discreet action, is more interested in sin as a disturbance in human nature and a disturbed will. What moves Augustine to his passionate repentance in this passage is a recognition of the disposition of sin working its way into his youthful heart in such a way that it caused him to prefer evil (theft) over good. This can be demonstrated by the sheer gratuitousness of his theft and his revelling in the sin that he reveals in this passage.
Ultimately, what this passage tells me is that we all can get to the point where we prefer evil to good, especially when we begin to move away from God. Sin can be very enticing- so much so that we may well pursue it to our own destruction. What Augustine provides in this seemingly trivial theft of a few pears isn't his neurosis, but the anatomy of a human heart turning towards sin. Yet, what Augustine also knew when he wrote the Confessions, and what I, ultimately, discovered those many years ago, God is even more powerful than the power of sin and the weakness of our will. Nothing separates us from God and not even, if we are willing, ourselves.
Peace,
Phil
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Patristics Carnival XXI- February, 2009
Finally, here is the new patristics carnival, delayed through busyness and a bad stomach flu. Enjoy the offerings for this month.
New Under the Tent: New Patristic Blogs And Announcements.
Ben Blackwell on the Dunelm Road blog announces the Patristics Seminar at the University of Durham for Epiphany term. (If anyone has anymore of these, send them along and I'll post them).
The administrator of the Research News in Late Antiquity publishes a job posting for editor-in-chief of the Patristics Monograph series.
Front Gate: Introductions to the Fathers
DP Cassidy on the In hoc Signo blog begins a list of the Fathers for beginners.
The Midway: Articles on the Fathers
Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers blog gives us news updates in patristics land.
Roger Pearse on his self-named blog considers the curse of too much reading, updated us on the progress of his Eusebius project, published more excerpts from the letters of Isidore of Pelusium, discusses the recipient name of Isidore of Pelusium, confronted his lust for the Clavis patrum Graecorum, especially in light of Armenian translation of Eusebius, made suggestions of which patristic translations he would like to see, discussed more letters of Isidore of Pelusium, one more letter of Isidore, still more letters of Isidore.
Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog discusses St. Ephrem on the Scriptures.
Jennifer on the Historical Continuity blog considers the connections between the Calvinist/Puritan stream of Protestantism and the Church Fathers.
Mike Aubrey on the ev epheso blog discusses a parallel between Ephesians 5 and 1 Clement 38 and the parallel between St. John Chrysosthom on Ephesians 5 and 1 Clement 38.
Polycarp on The Church of Jesus Christ blog discusses the clash between Dyohypostatic and Miahypostatic theology especially in context of the teachings of Marcellus of Ancyra. He continues his discussion with a consideration of the theological position that Marcellus opposed and details on his theology. He also completes his series on Ignatius of Antioch view of the economy of God.
RE Aguirre on the regula fidei blog is intoxicated with Augustine.
aaronandbrigid on the Logismoi blog discusses the Homilies of St. Macarius. They continue to discuss mystical silence and St. Maximus the Confessor.
Brian Small on the Polumeros kai Polutropos blog considers the scriptural and patristic case that Barnabas was the author of the Letter to the Hebrews.
Douglas Dobbins on the En Christo blog considers St. Athanasius's views on the fidelity of Jesus.
Demion Farnsworth on the Fallen and Flawed blog considers the Early Church Fathers, Girl Talk and the Seamless Doctrine of the Trinity. If nothing else, you have to read on to see how all those things fit together.
Theocoid on the Is my Phylactery Showing? blog considers St. Cyril of Jerusalem on the Eucharist and prayers for the dead. He also discusses the doctrine of the two wills, giving an overview of the ecumenical councils on the issue.
Weekend Fisher on the Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength blog discusses Dionysius of Alexandria's scholarly consideration against the Johanine authorship of Revelation.
The Areopagite on his self-named blog features a Christ and Culture patristic slapdown between St. Augustine and Tertullian.
Kevin on the Courting the Mystery blog seeks out and publishes the abbreviations for St. Athanasius' authentic and spurious works.
Ian on the Exploring Orthodoxy blog discusses Aphaphrat the Persian Sage and Narsai of Nisibis in light of the tradition of the Syrian Church Fathers.
Chipi Buenafe on the Catholic Metanarrative blog features a fascinating article on the revival of interest in the Fathers in Europe.
Eastern Anglican muses on patristics among Anglicans, especially the parallels of St. Polycarp's vision on entering the amphitheatre and Latimer's encouragement of Ridley on their martyrdom.
Patrick Malone on the Preaching Christ blog recommends reading the Fathers during Lent.
lylemook on the ruminations blog reflects on the Lenten Prayer of St. Ephrem.
Mark on the Joe and the Volcano blog refelcts on St. Polycarp, St. Irenaeus and the Hermeneutic of continuity.
polymathis on the Aspiring PolyMathis blog discusses Christian education in the New Testament and patristic era.
Philip Sumpter on the Narrative and Ontology blog considers the issue of historicity at the core of the Gospel and deals with what canonical theology is.
The Marketplace: Book Reviews
lukeprog on the Common Sense Atheist blog posts a surprisingly critical review of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. Well, perhaps not surprising. Clearly, lukeprog knows something about textual criticism and, particularly, textual criticism of the Bible.
Greg Boyd on the Christus Victor blog offers a book list for egg-heads based on his reading for his forth-coming book, The Myth of the Blueprint. This is an excellent review of the recent scholarly literature on the influence of Hellenistic philosophy on the Church Fathers. I've barely skimmed the list and it looks fascinating.
Dave Spots on the Cap'n Salty's Long Voyage blog reviews Journal of Early Christian Studies 16,1.
Well, not precisely, a book review, but I think a CD review counts. The Administrator of the Pontifical Society of St. John Chyrsosthom blog reviews Capella Romana's performance of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysosthom in English.
Pastor Bob Cornwall on the Ponderings on a Faith Journey reviews Philip Jenkin's book, The Lost History of Christianity. Okay, this isn't quite a patristics book, but it does deal with the patristic era outside the Graeco-Roman world, so fair enough.
Brendon on the Christian Book: Orthodoxy reviews Rodney Goodacre's A Patristic Greek Reader.
Ben Blackwell on the Dunelm Road blog calls attention to an important patristic resource, Biblia Patristica which is now available online.
Turretinfan on the Thoughts of Francis Turretin blog accuses several Roman Catholic apologists of misrepresenting St. Athanasius using pseudo-epigraphic works attributed to St. Athanasius.
Rick Brannon on ricoblog discusses Peter Lampe's book on Early Christians in Rome.
Tim Trautman on The Army of the Martyrs blog reviews the first volume of Johannes Quasten's Patrology.
RE Aguirre on the regula fidei blog gives a very favourable review of Craig Allert's High View of Scripture.
Exhibition Place: Biographies of the Fathers
KJC 32 on the Ohio Anglican blog gives a short life of St. Ignatius of Antioch. He follows up with a life of St. Polycarp.
John C. Myers on the One Man Trying...blog discusses the life of Origen in light of his intellect, passion and dedication.
The Rodeo: Patristic catenae
prazm on the Half the Kingdom blog offers a short patristics catena on Purgatory.
hanxster on the Hanxster.com blog posts a catena from the Early Church Fathers on free will.
The NT Administrator on Nicene Truth posts a patristics catena on the apostolic succession and authority.
Patrick Madrid on his self-named blog publishes a patristic catena on the Mass.
The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations and Summaries
Michael Aubrey on the ev epheso blog has started a translation of St. John Chrysosthom on Ephesians, 5,22ff.
On this blog, I completed the Sulpicius Severus' Life of St. Martin with sections 26 and 27 and published the links to the rest of the series.
The Talmudic Tabernacle: Christianity and Judaism in the Ancient World
Nothing new this month.
The Apocryphal Aisle: Christian Apocrypha
Nothing new this month.
New Under the Tent: New Patristic Blogs And Announcements.
Ben Blackwell on the Dunelm Road blog announces the Patristics Seminar at the University of Durham for Epiphany term. (If anyone has anymore of these, send them along and I'll post them).
The administrator of the Research News in Late Antiquity publishes a job posting for editor-in-chief of the Patristics Monograph series.
Front Gate: Introductions to the Fathers
DP Cassidy on the In hoc Signo blog begins a list of the Fathers for beginners.
The Midway: Articles on the Fathers
Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers blog gives us news updates in patristics land.
Roger Pearse on his self-named blog considers the curse of too much reading, updated us on the progress of his Eusebius project, published more excerpts from the letters of Isidore of Pelusium, discusses the recipient name of Isidore of Pelusium, confronted his lust for the Clavis patrum Graecorum, especially in light of Armenian translation of Eusebius, made suggestions of which patristic translations he would like to see, discussed more letters of Isidore of Pelusium, one more letter of Isidore, still more letters of Isidore.
Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog discusses St. Ephrem on the Scriptures.
Jennifer on the Historical Continuity blog considers the connections between the Calvinist/Puritan stream of Protestantism and the Church Fathers.
Mike Aubrey on the ev epheso blog discusses a parallel between Ephesians 5 and 1 Clement 38 and the parallel between St. John Chrysosthom on Ephesians 5 and 1 Clement 38.
Polycarp on The Church of Jesus Christ blog discusses the clash between Dyohypostatic and Miahypostatic theology especially in context of the teachings of Marcellus of Ancyra. He continues his discussion with a consideration of the theological position that Marcellus opposed and details on his theology. He also completes his series on Ignatius of Antioch view of the economy of God.
RE Aguirre on the regula fidei blog is intoxicated with Augustine.
aaronandbrigid on the Logismoi blog discusses the Homilies of St. Macarius. They continue to discuss mystical silence and St. Maximus the Confessor.
Brian Small on the Polumeros kai Polutropos blog considers the scriptural and patristic case that Barnabas was the author of the Letter to the Hebrews.
Douglas Dobbins on the En Christo blog considers St. Athanasius's views on the fidelity of Jesus.
Demion Farnsworth on the Fallen and Flawed blog considers the Early Church Fathers, Girl Talk and the Seamless Doctrine of the Trinity. If nothing else, you have to read on to see how all those things fit together.
Theocoid on the Is my Phylactery Showing? blog considers St. Cyril of Jerusalem on the Eucharist and prayers for the dead. He also discusses the doctrine of the two wills, giving an overview of the ecumenical councils on the issue.
Weekend Fisher on the Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength blog discusses Dionysius of Alexandria's scholarly consideration against the Johanine authorship of Revelation.
The Areopagite on his self-named blog features a Christ and Culture patristic slapdown between St. Augustine and Tertullian.
Kevin on the Courting the Mystery blog seeks out and publishes the abbreviations for St. Athanasius' authentic and spurious works.
Ian on the Exploring Orthodoxy blog discusses Aphaphrat the Persian Sage and Narsai of Nisibis in light of the tradition of the Syrian Church Fathers.
Chipi Buenafe on the Catholic Metanarrative blog features a fascinating article on the revival of interest in the Fathers in Europe.
Eastern Anglican muses on patristics among Anglicans, especially the parallels of St. Polycarp's vision on entering the amphitheatre and Latimer's encouragement of Ridley on their martyrdom.
Patrick Malone on the Preaching Christ blog recommends reading the Fathers during Lent.
lylemook on the ruminations blog reflects on the Lenten Prayer of St. Ephrem.
Mark on the Joe and the Volcano blog refelcts on St. Polycarp, St. Irenaeus and the Hermeneutic of continuity.
polymathis on the Aspiring PolyMathis blog discusses Christian education in the New Testament and patristic era.
Philip Sumpter on the Narrative and Ontology blog considers the issue of historicity at the core of the Gospel and deals with what canonical theology is.
The Marketplace: Book Reviews
lukeprog on the Common Sense Atheist blog posts a surprisingly critical review of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. Well, perhaps not surprising. Clearly, lukeprog knows something about textual criticism and, particularly, textual criticism of the Bible.
Greg Boyd on the Christus Victor blog offers a book list for egg-heads based on his reading for his forth-coming book, The Myth of the Blueprint. This is an excellent review of the recent scholarly literature on the influence of Hellenistic philosophy on the Church Fathers. I've barely skimmed the list and it looks fascinating.
Dave Spots on the Cap'n Salty's Long Voyage blog reviews Journal of Early Christian Studies 16,1.
Well, not precisely, a book review, but I think a CD review counts. The Administrator of the Pontifical Society of St. John Chyrsosthom blog reviews Capella Romana's performance of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysosthom in English.
Pastor Bob Cornwall on the Ponderings on a Faith Journey reviews Philip Jenkin's book, The Lost History of Christianity. Okay, this isn't quite a patristics book, but it does deal with the patristic era outside the Graeco-Roman world, so fair enough.
Brendon on the Christian Book: Orthodoxy reviews Rodney Goodacre's A Patristic Greek Reader.
Ben Blackwell on the Dunelm Road blog calls attention to an important patristic resource, Biblia Patristica which is now available online.
Turretinfan on the Thoughts of Francis Turretin blog accuses several Roman Catholic apologists of misrepresenting St. Athanasius using pseudo-epigraphic works attributed to St. Athanasius.
Rick Brannon on ricoblog discusses Peter Lampe's book on Early Christians in Rome.
Tim Trautman on The Army of the Martyrs blog reviews the first volume of Johannes Quasten's Patrology.
RE Aguirre on the regula fidei blog gives a very favourable review of Craig Allert's High View of Scripture.
Exhibition Place: Biographies of the Fathers
KJC 32 on the Ohio Anglican blog gives a short life of St. Ignatius of Antioch. He follows up with a life of St. Polycarp.
John C. Myers on the One Man Trying...blog discusses the life of Origen in light of his intellect, passion and dedication.
The Rodeo: Patristic catenae
prazm on the Half the Kingdom blog offers a short patristics catena on Purgatory.
hanxster on the Hanxster.com blog posts a catena from the Early Church Fathers on free will.
The NT Administrator on Nicene Truth posts a patristics catena on the apostolic succession and authority.
Patrick Madrid on his self-named blog publishes a patristic catena on the Mass.
The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations and Summaries
Michael Aubrey on the ev epheso blog has started a translation of St. John Chrysosthom on Ephesians, 5,22ff.
On this blog, I completed the Sulpicius Severus' Life of St. Martin with sections 26 and 27 and published the links to the rest of the series.
The Talmudic Tabernacle: Christianity and Judaism in the Ancient World
Nothing new this month.
The Apocryphal Aisle: Christian Apocrypha
Nothing new this month.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sulpicius Severus, Life of St. Martin. The Complete Story and Future Directions
As promised, here are the links to the various sections of the Life of St. Martin.
Preface
1 15
2 16
3 17
4 18
5 19
6 20
7 21
8 22
9 23
10 24
11 25
12 26
13 27
14
Future Directions:
Really, completing this translation is really only the first stage in a process which I hope will produce a useful translation. I originally started this translation series with the hope in mind that I would be able to work it up to offer as a gift to two of my parish churches which share the same name: St. Martin-in-the-Fields, West Toronto and St. Martin-in-the-Fields, London (Ontario). What I need to do right now is to go back over the translation with the text at hand and edit it some more so it reads better. I have a tendency to translate rather too literally, so I definitely have to smooth out the translation. More editing is necessary, mind you, and introductory material is needed. So, there is more work.
As for other translation activities, my next step is to work my way through The Patristic Greek Reader by Rodney Whitacre which I just bought last week. I think I'll do an extended review of this work as I work my way through it.
So, there will be more translation work in my future, so stay tuned.
Peace,
Phil
Preface
1 15
2 16
3 17
4 18
5 19
6 20
7 21
8 22
9 23
10 24
11 25
12 26
13 27
14
Future Directions:
Really, completing this translation is really only the first stage in a process which I hope will produce a useful translation. I originally started this translation series with the hope in mind that I would be able to work it up to offer as a gift to two of my parish churches which share the same name: St. Martin-in-the-Fields, West Toronto and St. Martin-in-the-Fields, London (Ontario). What I need to do right now is to go back over the translation with the text at hand and edit it some more so it reads better. I have a tendency to translate rather too literally, so I definitely have to smooth out the translation. More editing is necessary, mind you, and introductory material is needed. So, there is more work.
As for other translation activities, my next step is to work my way through The Patristic Greek Reader by Rodney Whitacre which I just bought last week. I think I'll do an extended review of this work as I work my way through it.
So, there will be more translation work in my future, so stay tuned.
Peace,
Phil
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Sulpicius Severus, Life of St. Martin 27
Here we come to the conclusion of Sulpicius Severus' Life of St. Martin; a series which I began around two and a quarter years ago (has it been that long!) back on St. Martin's day 2006. In a couple days, I intend to collate links to all the passages and publish them in a separate posting, along with some ideas about future directions for this project and for my translating efforts in general. So, stay tuned for that post.
Translation:
No one ever saw him angry, nor excited, nor lamenting nor laughing. He was always one and the same. Somehow preferring heavenly joy in his face, he seemed to be beyond the limits of human nature. (2) Nothing was ever on his lips except Christ. Nothing was ever in his heart except piety, peace and pity. Frequently, he was accustomed to weep for the sins of those who seemed to be his detractors, who harassed him with poisoned tongue and the mouth of vipers, although he lived apart and quietly. (3) Truly, we know about some who envied his virtue and his life, who hated him what they did not see in themselves and what they were not able to imitate. And, O crime which one must be pained and groan over, not a few were almost persecutors, to be sure just a few. Some, however, were reported to be bishops. (4) It isn't really necessary to name anyone. Many are accusing us falsely. It is enough that, if someone of them should read this and recognize themselves, he would blush. If he becomes angry, he will admit he was the one spoken about, when, perhaps, we were thinking of another person. (5) But we do not shrink away if anyone who is that type of person would hate us along with such a great man. (6) I am easily confident that this little deed is pleasing to all the saints. As for the rest, if anyone should read this without faith, he will sin. (7) I am conscious that I was motivated by my trust of the facts and love of Christ to write, to set out well-known things and to speak truthfully. I hope that whoever not only reads this book, but who believes them will have the reward which is prepared by God.
Commentary:
As we come to the conclusion, Severus continues his summation of St. Martin's character which he began in section 26. These last two chapters remind of how ancient biographies tend to end with rapid sketches of the essential personality of the person featured. There are differences, of course. For instance, we don't see any attempt to describe St. Martin physically. The focus is on spiritual gifts and virtues. That makes sense in this context, but one does wonder sometimes about what these people looked like and whether they resemble our picture of them.
Severus' concern with the opposition to St. Martin and, by extension, himself strikes me as interesting. St. Martin was the first of a type of bishop which was, by this time, reasonably common in the East, but not so much in the East: the monk bishop. The next generation would see its share (St. Augustine and his circle to name only a few examples, but the ascetic bishop was not necessarily a common figure in synods of the day. They weren't unheard of. St. Paulinus, mentioned by Severus, is a good example. Still, they were something of a novelty which may explain some of the opposition which St. Martin accidentally stirred up.
His opposition, it seems, is portrayed as more 'worldly'. These bishops were already influential within their provinces and were deeply involved in the church politics of the day. They were the ancestors of the mediaeval prince-bishops who came to dominate as lords considerable land holdings. They were more likely to emphasize their position in society, to develop an elaborate (and expensive) 'court' and to display the church's wealthy as a way of emphasizing their political power and influence. If we remember this, we can understand why the monk-bishop would make these other bishops look bad. Here we see monk-bishops diverting the resources used to emphasize the magnificence of the Church and its representative in the region, the bishop, to poor relief etc. The latter use of the Church's resources is, of course, more in line with what Christ commanded us to do which makes it embarrassing when someone actually acts on it.
We are, of course, in the middle of the conflict between the burgeoning monastic movement in the West and the trimphalistic Church of the late Roman period. This means that, in a sense, Severus has tipped his hand a little in this passage and revealed that his telling of St. Martin's life wasn't just motivated by a desire to edify the reader, but, also, to convince him of the benefit of the monastic movement in general. Just as St. Athanasius' Life of Antony had a similar double goal: edification and the strengthening of the Egyptian monastic movement, so to does Severus' effort.
This isn't to denigrate the very real spiritual goals of this Life. St. Martin is intended as an example of living a Christ-like life and we are expected to be inspired to imitate him.
Peace,
Phil
Translation:
No one ever saw him angry, nor excited, nor lamenting nor laughing. He was always one and the same. Somehow preferring heavenly joy in his face, he seemed to be beyond the limits of human nature. (2) Nothing was ever on his lips except Christ. Nothing was ever in his heart except piety, peace and pity. Frequently, he was accustomed to weep for the sins of those who seemed to be his detractors, who harassed him with poisoned tongue and the mouth of vipers, although he lived apart and quietly. (3) Truly, we know about some who envied his virtue and his life, who hated him what they did not see in themselves and what they were not able to imitate. And, O crime which one must be pained and groan over, not a few were almost persecutors, to be sure just a few. Some, however, were reported to be bishops. (4) It isn't really necessary to name anyone. Many are accusing us falsely. It is enough that, if someone of them should read this and recognize themselves, he would blush. If he becomes angry, he will admit he was the one spoken about, when, perhaps, we were thinking of another person. (5) But we do not shrink away if anyone who is that type of person would hate us along with such a great man. (6) I am easily confident that this little deed is pleasing to all the saints. As for the rest, if anyone should read this without faith, he will sin. (7) I am conscious that I was motivated by my trust of the facts and love of Christ to write, to set out well-known things and to speak truthfully. I hope that whoever not only reads this book, but who believes them will have the reward which is prepared by God.
Commentary:
As we come to the conclusion, Severus continues his summation of St. Martin's character which he began in section 26. These last two chapters remind of how ancient biographies tend to end with rapid sketches of the essential personality of the person featured. There are differences, of course. For instance, we don't see any attempt to describe St. Martin physically. The focus is on spiritual gifts and virtues. That makes sense in this context, but one does wonder sometimes about what these people looked like and whether they resemble our picture of them.
Severus' concern with the opposition to St. Martin and, by extension, himself strikes me as interesting. St. Martin was the first of a type of bishop which was, by this time, reasonably common in the East, but not so much in the East: the monk bishop. The next generation would see its share (St. Augustine and his circle to name only a few examples, but the ascetic bishop was not necessarily a common figure in synods of the day. They weren't unheard of. St. Paulinus, mentioned by Severus, is a good example. Still, they were something of a novelty which may explain some of the opposition which St. Martin accidentally stirred up.
His opposition, it seems, is portrayed as more 'worldly'. These bishops were already influential within their provinces and were deeply involved in the church politics of the day. They were the ancestors of the mediaeval prince-bishops who came to dominate as lords considerable land holdings. They were more likely to emphasize their position in society, to develop an elaborate (and expensive) 'court' and to display the church's wealthy as a way of emphasizing their political power and influence. If we remember this, we can understand why the monk-bishop would make these other bishops look bad. Here we see monk-bishops diverting the resources used to emphasize the magnificence of the Church and its representative in the region, the bishop, to poor relief etc. The latter use of the Church's resources is, of course, more in line with what Christ commanded us to do which makes it embarrassing when someone actually acts on it.
We are, of course, in the middle of the conflict between the burgeoning monastic movement in the West and the trimphalistic Church of the late Roman period. This means that, in a sense, Severus has tipped his hand a little in this passage and revealed that his telling of St. Martin's life wasn't just motivated by a desire to edify the reader, but, also, to convince him of the benefit of the monastic movement in general. Just as St. Athanasius' Life of Antony had a similar double goal: edification and the strengthening of the Egyptian monastic movement, so to does Severus' effort.
This isn't to denigrate the very real spiritual goals of this Life. St. Martin is intended as an example of living a Christ-like life and we are expected to be inspired to imitate him.
Peace,
Phil
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Call For Submission- Patristic Carnival XXI
Welcome to Patristic Carnival XXI. This month, we're back here at hyperekperissou.
The guidelines remain the same as the Modest Proposal entry back in November, 2006 and my additions in August, 2007.
The last day of submission will be February 28th and the postings will be up by the week of March 10th. .
Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)
Peace,Phil
The guidelines remain the same as the Modest Proposal entry back in November, 2006 and my additions in August, 2007.
The last day of submission will be February 28th and the postings will be up by the week of March 10th. .
Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)
Peace,Phil
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Sulpicius Severus, Life of St. Martin 26
Here is the penultimate installment of Sulpicius Severus', Life of St. Martin.
Translation:
But this book now demands an end, this discourse must conclude, not because everything which must be said about Martin has been exhausted, but, because we, just as an incompetent poet, careless at the end of the work, succumb, defeated by the amount of material. (2) Although his deeds can be set out in words, no speech, I truly admit, will explain his inner life, daily conversation and his heart which was always intent on heaven. I truly acknowledge, of course, his perseverance and moderation in abstinence and fasting, his power in vigils and prayers, days and nights spend in like manner and no time free from the work of God in which he indulged in leisure or business nor indeed in food or sleep, unless to the degree the necessities of nature forced . (3) If, as they say, Homer himself emerged from the dead, it is not possible to explain all of this. To such an extent all this is greater than can be conceived in words. No hour or moment was ever wasted in which he did not apply himself to prayer or pursue reading, although even amid reading or if, by chance, he was doing something else, he did not relax his soul from prayer. (4) Truly, just as is a custom among blacksmiths, who beat their own anvil amid their work as a break in their labour, just so Martin was always praying, even while he seemed to do something else. (5) O truly blessed man, in whom there was no deceit: he judged no one, condemned no one, returned no evil for evil to anyone. Naturally, he displayed such great patience against all injuries that, even when he was the supreme priest, he was insulted by the lowest clerics without punishing them nor did he ever remove them from their position because of the insult or, as much as was in his power, did he drive them out from his affection.
Commentary:
With this section, we're in the home stretch and Sulpicius is getting ready the rhetorical fireworks which tend to begin and end of ancient literary efforts. Rhetorically, we can see the return of Sulpicius' modesty and his insistence of his basic incompetence for the task of writing about St. Martin. If you go back to the preface (which I translated two and a quarter years ago here), you'll see the same theme. For that matter, we have seen Sulpicius' protests of his literary incompetence throughout this life. We're not really used to this particular rhetorical theme- we tend to boast about our abilities, not denigrate them when we write-, so I think we misunderstand Sulpicius' scruples, dismissing them as insincere and/or tedious. Yet, if we think about it, I think this rhetorical trope has some interesting historical implications.
Sulpicius is hardly the first Latin or, for that matter, Greek writer to use this trope. Indeed, this sense of one's incapacity for high literary efforts is common from the 2nd century AD onwards. Partly, it reflects the sense of the post-Golden Age writers (Vergil, Horace, Livy etc) that the real glories of Latin literature are over and that the job of the contemporary writer was to use these examplars as touchstones for their own literary productions. By the time we get to the fourth century, there is a strong sense among many Latin writers- pagan and Christian- that, no matter how well they write, they'll never reach the level of the glorious writers of the past.
Add to this the rather ambivalent attitude that Christian writers had to pagan learning such as rhetoric or philosophy or, even, historical writing. No one could deny the worldly benefits of these pursuits, especially rhetoric. Yet, herein lies the problem. There is an element where excellent ability in writing was a little suspect because it reflected, perhaps, too much attention to the pagan arts. The literary standard for the Latin Christian writer shouldn't merely be Vergil or the school authors, but, also, the Bible whose rude style offended the delicate sensibilities of the young Augustine, but which was also authoritative in the Christian community. Sulpicius' shyness in claiming literary skill can also be understood as a subtle rejection of the pagan literary world and of the world in general. It is, in a sense, a part of Sulpicius' vicarious participation in St. Martin's ascetic life. In a sense, it is an assertion of the Christian dictum of the weak shaming the strong by their faith.
Furthermore, I hope that you see what Sulpicius thinks he can't describe. It isn't St. Martin's deeds, but rather it is his interior life, his life in prayer. Here we come to the heart of the problem that Sulpicius has been dealing with since the beginning of the work- how to portray the all-important life of prayer which is so important in a saint. St. Martin, like many of the monastic clerics and saints, was, first and foremost, a man of prayer. That is part of what made and makes him such an inspiring figure. St. Martin's claim to fame isn't his deeds- whether we're talking about his famous clothing of a beggar or his efforts to Christianize the Gallic countryside around Tours- but, rather, his participation in the life of Christ in the world through prayer. This is why he was so compelling a subject for Sulpicius and, ironically, why Sulpicius cannot really do justice to him.
Well, stay tuned for the last few bursts of rhetorical fireworks in the next installments. With the end so near, I think I will probably finish up this series next week. Then, I'll post links to all the installments and give some ideas of where my translating efforts are going to lead.
Peace,
Phil
Translation:
But this book now demands an end, this discourse must conclude, not because everything which must be said about Martin has been exhausted, but, because we, just as an incompetent poet, careless at the end of the work, succumb, defeated by the amount of material. (2) Although his deeds can be set out in words, no speech, I truly admit, will explain his inner life, daily conversation and his heart which was always intent on heaven. I truly acknowledge, of course, his perseverance and moderation in abstinence and fasting, his power in vigils and prayers, days and nights spend in like manner and no time free from the work of God in which he indulged in leisure or business nor indeed in food or sleep, unless to the degree the necessities of nature forced . (3) If, as they say, Homer himself emerged from the dead, it is not possible to explain all of this. To such an extent all this is greater than can be conceived in words. No hour or moment was ever wasted in which he did not apply himself to prayer or pursue reading, although even amid reading or if, by chance, he was doing something else, he did not relax his soul from prayer. (4) Truly, just as is a custom among blacksmiths, who beat their own anvil amid their work as a break in their labour, just so Martin was always praying, even while he seemed to do something else. (5) O truly blessed man, in whom there was no deceit: he judged no one, condemned no one, returned no evil for evil to anyone. Naturally, he displayed such great patience against all injuries that, even when he was the supreme priest, he was insulted by the lowest clerics without punishing them nor did he ever remove them from their position because of the insult or, as much as was in his power, did he drive them out from his affection.
Commentary:
With this section, we're in the home stretch and Sulpicius is getting ready the rhetorical fireworks which tend to begin and end of ancient literary efforts. Rhetorically, we can see the return of Sulpicius' modesty and his insistence of his basic incompetence for the task of writing about St. Martin. If you go back to the preface (which I translated two and a quarter years ago here), you'll see the same theme. For that matter, we have seen Sulpicius' protests of his literary incompetence throughout this life. We're not really used to this particular rhetorical theme- we tend to boast about our abilities, not denigrate them when we write-, so I think we misunderstand Sulpicius' scruples, dismissing them as insincere and/or tedious. Yet, if we think about it, I think this rhetorical trope has some interesting historical implications.
Sulpicius is hardly the first Latin or, for that matter, Greek writer to use this trope. Indeed, this sense of one's incapacity for high literary efforts is common from the 2nd century AD onwards. Partly, it reflects the sense of the post-Golden Age writers (Vergil, Horace, Livy etc) that the real glories of Latin literature are over and that the job of the contemporary writer was to use these examplars as touchstones for their own literary productions. By the time we get to the fourth century, there is a strong sense among many Latin writers- pagan and Christian- that, no matter how well they write, they'll never reach the level of the glorious writers of the past.
Add to this the rather ambivalent attitude that Christian writers had to pagan learning such as rhetoric or philosophy or, even, historical writing. No one could deny the worldly benefits of these pursuits, especially rhetoric. Yet, herein lies the problem. There is an element where excellent ability in writing was a little suspect because it reflected, perhaps, too much attention to the pagan arts. The literary standard for the Latin Christian writer shouldn't merely be Vergil or the school authors, but, also, the Bible whose rude style offended the delicate sensibilities of the young Augustine, but which was also authoritative in the Christian community. Sulpicius' shyness in claiming literary skill can also be understood as a subtle rejection of the pagan literary world and of the world in general. It is, in a sense, a part of Sulpicius' vicarious participation in St. Martin's ascetic life. In a sense, it is an assertion of the Christian dictum of the weak shaming the strong by their faith.
Furthermore, I hope that you see what Sulpicius thinks he can't describe. It isn't St. Martin's deeds, but rather it is his interior life, his life in prayer. Here we come to the heart of the problem that Sulpicius has been dealing with since the beginning of the work- how to portray the all-important life of prayer which is so important in a saint. St. Martin, like many of the monastic clerics and saints, was, first and foremost, a man of prayer. That is part of what made and makes him such an inspiring figure. St. Martin's claim to fame isn't his deeds- whether we're talking about his famous clothing of a beggar or his efforts to Christianize the Gallic countryside around Tours- but, rather, his participation in the life of Christ in the world through prayer. This is why he was so compelling a subject for Sulpicius and, ironically, why Sulpicius cannot really do justice to him.
Well, stay tuned for the last few bursts of rhetorical fireworks in the next installments. With the end so near, I think I will probably finish up this series next week. Then, I'll post links to all the installments and give some ideas of where my translating efforts are going to lead.
Peace,
Phil
Monday, February 09, 2009
Patristics Carnival XX- January, 2009
New Under the Tent: New Patristic Blogs And Announcements.
Nothing new this month.
Front Gate: Introductions to the Fathers
David on the He Lives blog offers an introduction to Church History.
The Newsletter of the Roman Orthodox Church examines that 'old time' religion of the Fathers in parts one, two, three, four and five. Yes, I know, it starts in December, but it is too good not to include. Besides, I missed it last month.
The Midway: Articles on the Fathers
Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers blog resolves to learn Greek this year.
Roger Pearse on his self-named blog considers James of Edessa, a 8th century continuator of Eusebius who preserve the first mention of Mohammed, updated his plans to commission translations of Eusebius of Caesarea's lesser known works, introduces us to Isidore of Pelusium, reviews the numbering of the letters of Isidore of Pelusium, announces his publication of a cross-reference table for the numbering of Isidore of Pelusium's letters in Migne and the Source Chretiennes edition. Wow, Roger just tires me out listing his patristic entries, much less his other valuable work.
Tim Trautman on the Army of Martyrs blog claims antiquity for the Catholic Church, returns the favour because the Church belongs to antiquity and considers Second Clement and Incarnational ecclesiology.
Chris Armstrong on the Christian History blog discusses the charismatic gifts in the early patristic age.
Weekend Fisher on the Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength blog considers Eusebius' historical methodology in determine the canonical status of several books attributed to Peter.
Polycarp on the Church of Jesus Christ blog discusses God the Father and Jesus Christ: Ignatius of Antioch and the Economy of God in parts one and two, considers John Cassian on free will and as an alternative to Augustine,
David Waltz on the Articuli Fidei blog discusses the development of doctrine in the light of Behr, Louth, Hanson, Giles and Newman.
Historical TheoBlogy features a discussion of Arius' exegetical method and its applications to Proverbs 8.
Stan on the Winging It blog considers the Church's relationship to the military with some important discussion of the attitudes of early Fathers.
Mark on the Joe Versus the Volcano blog discusses St. Gregory Nazianzus' view on deification.
Richard on the Tehillim blog (thanks to my wife for transliterating the Hebrew title discusses St. Athanasius, Mary and Psalm. 45.
Reed Antony Carlson on the theophiliacs blog discusses the patristic view on non-violence as part of a wider series on Non-Violence in a Violent World.
Andrew on the Theology of Andrew blog discusses St. Ignatius of Antioch's ecclesiology and the problems it creates for non-episcopal Protestant denominations.
Father Ernesto Obregon on the Ortho-Cuban blog considers whether the Radical Reformers' challenge of the authority of the Early Church Fathers paved the way for liberal Christian challenges of the Bible.
Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog offers a catalogue of St. Vladimir Press' Popular Patristics series with an indication of which treatises are included in each volume. This is an invaluable resource.
Christopher D. Hall on the This Side of the Pulpit blog considers tradition as submission's teacher.
Father Gregory Wassen on the First Principles blog considers the patristic understanding of Scriptural exegesis as opposed to modern understandings in part one and part two.
Jay Dyer on the Nicene Truth blog offers a primer on Trinitarian Theology and Christology.
Brian LePort on the pasa graphe blog considers Justin Martyr's view on Christian participation in the military.
Michael on the To and Through St. Vlad's considers the fun of three-in-one, or, in other words, Trinitarian theology brought to you by the Cappadocian Fathers.
Theocoid on the Is my Phylactery Showing? blog let us in on the discussion questions for his patristics class.
Kevin on the Courting the Mystery blog considers new Syriac textbooks and the hope Origen gives us.
John Hobbins on the Ancient Hebrew Poetry blog considers Stanley Fish's contention why St. Augustine would allow Roland Burris to sit in President Obama's old Senate seat.
Rick Brannon on ricoblog considers a textual problem in the Letter to Diognetus.
MG on The Well of Questions blog considers Jerome's view on the tri-fold ministry structure shared by Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism and St. Athanasius on the Law of Death.
James Swan on the Alpha and Omega Ministries argues that Protestants do have the apostolic tradition.
Ben Smith on the Thoughts on Antiquity blog continues his series on the canonical lists with the Stichmetry of (Pseudo-)Nicephorus.
Walter Shandruch on the Thoughts on Antiquity blog considers early Christian use of magic.
On this blog, I consider why Christians can't leave history alone.
The Marketplace: Book Reviews
Nick Norelli on the Rightly Dividing the Truth blog reviews Christopher Hall's Learning Theology with the Church Fathers.
Brendon on the Christian Books: Orthodoxy blog reviews Andrew Louth's translation of John of Damascus' Three Treatises on Divine Images from our friends at St. Vladimir Press' Popular Patristics series.
Christina on the Christian Books: Orthodoxy blog reviews Norman Russell's The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition.
The MLibrary blog offers a short review of Norman Russel's Theophilus.
The Very Rev. Dr. Theodosius Walker on the St. Mary's Orthodox Bookstore blog reviews James Cowan's Desert Father: A Journey in the Wilderness with Saint Antony.
April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospels blog reviews the Collected Essays of Gilles Quispel.
Tim Trautman on the Army of Martyrs blog reviews J. Patout Burns book, Cyprian the Bishop.
Derek Leman on the Messianic Jewish Ramblings blog reviews Philip Jenkins' The Lost History of Christianity.
Philip Harland on the Religions of the Ancient World blog previews his forthcoming book on the Dynamics of Identity and Early Christianities.
Exhibition Place: Biographies of the Fathers
J. Hearne on the Telling the Stories That Matter examines the biography of St. Gregory of Nyssa.
Brad Culver on the Living Water From an Ancient Well blog discusses St. Antony. He follows up this post with a consideration of the Desert Fathers as a group. He also gives the biography of St. John Chryosthom.
Peter on The Rock and The Sword blog gives St. Antony's biography also.
Padre Mickey on Padre Mickey's Dance Party also considers the life of St. John Chyrsosthom.
Sophocles on the a...sinner blog considers the life of Hippolytus of Rome.
Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog considers Sts. Ephrem and Isaac.
The Rodeo: Patristic catenae
Nothing new this month.
The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations and Summaries
Roger Pearse on his self-named blog publishes some commissioned translations of a few letters of Isidore of Pelusium.
On this blog, I continue my series on Sulpicius Severus' Life of St. Martin.
The Talmudic Tabernacle: Christianity and Judaism in the Ancient World
Nothing new this month.
The Apocryphal Aisle: Christian Apocrypha
Father Jones on the Anglican Centrist blog posts an article by Bryan Owen critiquing Elaine Pagel and her book, Beyond Belief.
April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospels blog notes her observations on the Apocolypse of Gabrial stone, notes a micromorphological analysis of the same stone, discusses why theology isn't history, poses a translation problem in the Gospel of Judas,
Nothing new this month.
Front Gate: Introductions to the Fathers
David on the He Lives blog offers an introduction to Church History.
The Newsletter of the Roman Orthodox Church examines that 'old time' religion of the Fathers in parts one, two, three, four and five. Yes, I know, it starts in December, but it is too good not to include. Besides, I missed it last month.
The Midway: Articles on the Fathers
Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers blog resolves to learn Greek this year.
Roger Pearse on his self-named blog considers James of Edessa, a 8th century continuator of Eusebius who preserve the first mention of Mohammed, updated his plans to commission translations of Eusebius of Caesarea's lesser known works, introduces us to Isidore of Pelusium, reviews the numbering of the letters of Isidore of Pelusium, announces his publication of a cross-reference table for the numbering of Isidore of Pelusium's letters in Migne and the Source Chretiennes edition. Wow, Roger just tires me out listing his patristic entries, much less his other valuable work.
Tim Trautman on the Army of Martyrs blog claims antiquity for the Catholic Church, returns the favour because the Church belongs to antiquity and considers Second Clement and Incarnational ecclesiology.
Chris Armstrong on the Christian History blog discusses the charismatic gifts in the early patristic age.
Weekend Fisher on the Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength blog considers Eusebius' historical methodology in determine the canonical status of several books attributed to Peter.
Polycarp on the Church of Jesus Christ blog discusses God the Father and Jesus Christ: Ignatius of Antioch and the Economy of God in parts one and two, considers John Cassian on free will and as an alternative to Augustine,
David Waltz on the Articuli Fidei blog discusses the development of doctrine in the light of Behr, Louth, Hanson, Giles and Newman.
Historical TheoBlogy features a discussion of Arius' exegetical method and its applications to Proverbs 8.
Stan on the Winging It blog considers the Church's relationship to the military with some important discussion of the attitudes of early Fathers.
Mark on the Joe Versus the Volcano blog discusses St. Gregory Nazianzus' view on deification.
Richard on the Tehillim blog (thanks to my wife for transliterating the Hebrew title discusses St. Athanasius, Mary and Psalm. 45.
Reed Antony Carlson on the theophiliacs blog discusses the patristic view on non-violence as part of a wider series on Non-Violence in a Violent World.
Andrew on the Theology of Andrew blog discusses St. Ignatius of Antioch's ecclesiology and the problems it creates for non-episcopal Protestant denominations.
Father Ernesto Obregon on the Ortho-Cuban blog considers whether the Radical Reformers' challenge of the authority of the Early Church Fathers paved the way for liberal Christian challenges of the Bible.
Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog offers a catalogue of St. Vladimir Press' Popular Patristics series with an indication of which treatises are included in each volume. This is an invaluable resource.
Christopher D. Hall on the This Side of the Pulpit blog considers tradition as submission's teacher.
Father Gregory Wassen on the First Principles blog considers the patristic understanding of Scriptural exegesis as opposed to modern understandings in part one and part two.
Jay Dyer on the Nicene Truth blog offers a primer on Trinitarian Theology and Christology.
Brian LePort on the pasa graphe blog considers Justin Martyr's view on Christian participation in the military.
Michael on the To and Through St. Vlad's considers the fun of three-in-one, or, in other words, Trinitarian theology brought to you by the Cappadocian Fathers.
Theocoid on the Is my Phylactery Showing? blog let us in on the discussion questions for his patristics class.
Kevin on the Courting the Mystery blog considers new Syriac textbooks and the hope Origen gives us.
John Hobbins on the Ancient Hebrew Poetry blog considers Stanley Fish's contention why St. Augustine would allow Roland Burris to sit in President Obama's old Senate seat.
Rick Brannon on ricoblog considers a textual problem in the Letter to Diognetus.
MG on The Well of Questions blog considers Jerome's view on the tri-fold ministry structure shared by Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism and St. Athanasius on the Law of Death.
James Swan on the Alpha and Omega Ministries argues that Protestants do have the apostolic tradition.
Ben Smith on the Thoughts on Antiquity blog continues his series on the canonical lists with the Stichmetry of (Pseudo-)Nicephorus.
Walter Shandruch on the Thoughts on Antiquity blog considers early Christian use of magic.
On this blog, I consider why Christians can't leave history alone.
The Marketplace: Book Reviews
Nick Norelli on the Rightly Dividing the Truth blog reviews Christopher Hall's Learning Theology with the Church Fathers.
Brendon on the Christian Books: Orthodoxy blog reviews Andrew Louth's translation of John of Damascus' Three Treatises on Divine Images from our friends at St. Vladimir Press' Popular Patristics series.
Christina on the Christian Books: Orthodoxy blog reviews Norman Russell's The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition.
The MLibrary blog offers a short review of Norman Russel's Theophilus.
The Very Rev. Dr. Theodosius Walker on the St. Mary's Orthodox Bookstore blog reviews James Cowan's Desert Father: A Journey in the Wilderness with Saint Antony.
April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospels blog reviews the Collected Essays of Gilles Quispel.
Tim Trautman on the Army of Martyrs blog reviews J. Patout Burns book, Cyprian the Bishop.
Derek Leman on the Messianic Jewish Ramblings blog reviews Philip Jenkins' The Lost History of Christianity.
Philip Harland on the Religions of the Ancient World blog previews his forthcoming book on the Dynamics of Identity and Early Christianities.
Exhibition Place: Biographies of the Fathers
J. Hearne on the Telling the Stories That Matter examines the biography of St. Gregory of Nyssa.
Brad Culver on the Living Water From an Ancient Well blog discusses St. Antony. He follows up this post with a consideration of the Desert Fathers as a group. He also gives the biography of St. John Chryosthom.
Peter on The Rock and The Sword blog gives St. Antony's biography also.
Padre Mickey on Padre Mickey's Dance Party also considers the life of St. John Chyrsosthom.
Sophocles on the a...sinner blog considers the life of Hippolytus of Rome.
Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog considers Sts. Ephrem and Isaac.
The Rodeo: Patristic catenae
Nothing new this month.
The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations and Summaries
Roger Pearse on his self-named blog publishes some commissioned translations of a few letters of Isidore of Pelusium.
On this blog, I continue my series on Sulpicius Severus' Life of St. Martin.
The Talmudic Tabernacle: Christianity and Judaism in the Ancient World
Nothing new this month.
The Apocryphal Aisle: Christian Apocrypha
Father Jones on the Anglican Centrist blog posts an article by Bryan Owen critiquing Elaine Pagel and her book, Beyond Belief.
April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospels blog notes her observations on the Apocolypse of Gabrial stone, notes a micromorphological analysis of the same stone, discusses why theology isn't history, poses a translation problem in the Gospel of Judas,
Monday, January 26, 2009
Sulpicius Severus, Life of St. Martin 25
Translation:
Since we had heard about his faith, life and virtue at that time and we burned with desire for (meeting) him, we took up the pleasing journey to meet him. At the same time, since our heart was burning to write his life, we sought to learn in part from him how much as he could be asked and we learned in part from those were with him and knew him. (2) In fact, at that time, it was not possible to be believe with what humility, with what kindness he received us. He congratulated us very much and rejoiced in the Lord because he was held so important by us, for whom we took up a journey and sought him. (3) Miserable me- I almost don't dare to confess it- when he thought me worthy to invite us to his holy banquet, he himself brought water for our hands. In the evening, he himself washed our feet for us. Nor did we have the firmness to struggle against and oppose him. In this way, I was overcome by his authority so that I thought it wrong, if I would not have given in. (4) His conversation with me was about nothing else than the necessity to give up the allurements of the world and secular burdens so that, free and unencumbered, we would follow the Lord Jesus. He threw in the most outstanding example of that man, Paulinus, famous to us in the present time about whom we made mention above, who after casting aside the greatest wealth and following Jesus, he almost alone in his times, fulfilled the precepts of the Gospel. (5) It was he who we must follow, it was he, he shouted, who must be imitated: and that the present time was blessed with the proof of such great faith and virtue, when a rich man, who possessed much, by selling everything and giving it to the poor, made possible by his example what was impossible to achieve. (6) Truly, how so much gravity was there in his words and conversation! How great was his dignity? How acute, how effective, how ready and easy was he in solving scriptural questions! Since I know many don't believe at this point- obviously I have seen those who do not believe me when I report these things, I call on Jesus and our common hope to witness that I had never heard about such great skill, such good and pure conversation from that lips of anyone. (8) How trifling this praise is in comparison to Martin's virtues, save only that it was astonishing for an illiterate man that he did not lack this gift.
Commentary:
With this section, we're beginning the home stretch for this Life. Just as in classical biographies, Sulpicius is finishing his hagiography with a consideration of the character of his subject. What is more, in this chapter, he is reinforcing his claim for special authority in the Life of St. Martin by emphasizing his personal meeting with St. Martin. Given that historians and biographers gave special authority to eye-witnesses and personal autopsy, Sulpicius' discussion of his meeting with St. Martin and his community is a significant one. It suggests that those who wish to scoff at the details of his Life of St. Martin are on weak ground because Sulpicius has good evidence for what he has already spoken about. Given his frequent references to his sources, all this chapter does is make this claim explicit.
In St. Martin's behavior to Sulpicius, we find the familiar pattern of Martin's identification with Jesus which is so complete that the Jesus who is in Martin causes him to act in imitation of Him. Thus, we see him serving Sulpicius and washing his feet. Similarly, we find him a formidable exegete, even though he is illiterate. In St. Martin, we find a person who has connected with God inwardly to such a degree, that he begins to echo him outwardly which, I think, is the point of the scriptural parallels in the stories about St. Martin in this life.
The Paulinus mentioned in this passage is likely St. Paulinus of Nola, who, after the death of his son, was baptized and began to distribute his extensive fortune around 390 AD. This decision was widely acclaimed, especially in Western monastic circles. He was later ordained bishop of Nola around 403 AD and corresponded with such Christian leaders as St. Martin, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine and St. Jerome. The tone of this passage would seem to suggest an early date in Paulinus' life, so, perhaps the early 390s. This would establish Sulpicius' visit with St. Martin as occuring around then.
Part of me would like to stop there with this chronological point, but I think that would be ignoring the elephant in the room right now: both St. Paulinus' giving away of his worldly goods and St. Martin's approval. I think it important to plumb the depths of what makes me uncomfortable. After all, we're not talking about just tithing ten per cent here (which I'm not sure we're quite doing yet) or that we are stewards for what God has put in our hands (but we DO get to enjoy it while we're alive, don't we, Lord?), but the simple and literal obedience to Jesus' advice to the rich young ruler to give away all that he has and follow Jesus. Now, that is scary, especially to someone who lives in a highly consumerist society like ours. Examples like St. Paulinus or St. Martin or even modern monastics make me want to look for loopholes and ways of saying that I can get away with more possessions than I need. What I wish for is someone to reassure me that I can be rich (and as someone living in Canada in comparison to most of the rest of the world, I'm rich) and somehow obey Jesus on this point.
What I would like is to know how much is enough to take care of my family and how much is too much. I really don't know. Living in Toronto is expensive and we're on one income right now. Yet, I want things-books mostly, but other things: a nice house, a car, all the accoutrement's of suburban life-, so I don't know how to decide what is needed and what is not. Examples such as St. Paulinus and St. Martin don't let me get away with easy answers. I'm just not sure what to do with the hard answers.
Peace,
Phil
Since we had heard about his faith, life and virtue at that time and we burned with desire for (meeting) him, we took up the pleasing journey to meet him. At the same time, since our heart was burning to write his life, we sought to learn in part from him how much as he could be asked and we learned in part from those were with him and knew him. (2) In fact, at that time, it was not possible to be believe with what humility, with what kindness he received us. He congratulated us very much and rejoiced in the Lord because he was held so important by us, for whom we took up a journey and sought him. (3) Miserable me- I almost don't dare to confess it- when he thought me worthy to invite us to his holy banquet, he himself brought water for our hands. In the evening, he himself washed our feet for us. Nor did we have the firmness to struggle against and oppose him. In this way, I was overcome by his authority so that I thought it wrong, if I would not have given in. (4) His conversation with me was about nothing else than the necessity to give up the allurements of the world and secular burdens so that, free and unencumbered, we would follow the Lord Jesus. He threw in the most outstanding example of that man, Paulinus, famous to us in the present time about whom we made mention above, who after casting aside the greatest wealth and following Jesus, he almost alone in his times, fulfilled the precepts of the Gospel. (5) It was he who we must follow, it was he, he shouted, who must be imitated: and that the present time was blessed with the proof of such great faith and virtue, when a rich man, who possessed much, by selling everything and giving it to the poor, made possible by his example what was impossible to achieve. (6) Truly, how so much gravity was there in his words and conversation! How great was his dignity? How acute, how effective, how ready and easy was he in solving scriptural questions! Since I know many don't believe at this point- obviously I have seen those who do not believe me when I report these things, I call on Jesus and our common hope to witness that I had never heard about such great skill, such good and pure conversation from that lips of anyone. (8) How trifling this praise is in comparison to Martin's virtues, save only that it was astonishing for an illiterate man that he did not lack this gift.
Commentary:
With this section, we're beginning the home stretch for this Life. Just as in classical biographies, Sulpicius is finishing his hagiography with a consideration of the character of his subject. What is more, in this chapter, he is reinforcing his claim for special authority in the Life of St. Martin by emphasizing his personal meeting with St. Martin. Given that historians and biographers gave special authority to eye-witnesses and personal autopsy, Sulpicius' discussion of his meeting with St. Martin and his community is a significant one. It suggests that those who wish to scoff at the details of his Life of St. Martin are on weak ground because Sulpicius has good evidence for what he has already spoken about. Given his frequent references to his sources, all this chapter does is make this claim explicit.
In St. Martin's behavior to Sulpicius, we find the familiar pattern of Martin's identification with Jesus which is so complete that the Jesus who is in Martin causes him to act in imitation of Him. Thus, we see him serving Sulpicius and washing his feet. Similarly, we find him a formidable exegete, even though he is illiterate. In St. Martin, we find a person who has connected with God inwardly to such a degree, that he begins to echo him outwardly which, I think, is the point of the scriptural parallels in the stories about St. Martin in this life.
The Paulinus mentioned in this passage is likely St. Paulinus of Nola, who, after the death of his son, was baptized and began to distribute his extensive fortune around 390 AD. This decision was widely acclaimed, especially in Western monastic circles. He was later ordained bishop of Nola around 403 AD and corresponded with such Christian leaders as St. Martin, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine and St. Jerome. The tone of this passage would seem to suggest an early date in Paulinus' life, so, perhaps the early 390s. This would establish Sulpicius' visit with St. Martin as occuring around then.
Part of me would like to stop there with this chronological point, but I think that would be ignoring the elephant in the room right now: both St. Paulinus' giving away of his worldly goods and St. Martin's approval. I think it important to plumb the depths of what makes me uncomfortable. After all, we're not talking about just tithing ten per cent here (which I'm not sure we're quite doing yet) or that we are stewards for what God has put in our hands (but we DO get to enjoy it while we're alive, don't we, Lord?), but the simple and literal obedience to Jesus' advice to the rich young ruler to give away all that he has and follow Jesus. Now, that is scary, especially to someone who lives in a highly consumerist society like ours. Examples like St. Paulinus or St. Martin or even modern monastics make me want to look for loopholes and ways of saying that I can get away with more possessions than I need. What I wish for is someone to reassure me that I can be rich (and as someone living in Canada in comparison to most of the rest of the world, I'm rich) and somehow obey Jesus on this point.
What I would like is to know how much is enough to take care of my family and how much is too much. I really don't know. Living in Toronto is expensive and we're on one income right now. Yet, I want things-books mostly, but other things: a nice house, a car, all the accoutrement's of suburban life-, so I don't know how to decide what is needed and what is not. Examples such as St. Paulinus and St. Martin don't let me get away with easy answers. I'm just not sure what to do with the hard answers.
Peace,
Phil
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Patristic Carnival XX- Call for Submissions
Welcome to Patristic Carnival XX. This month, we're back here at hyperekperissou.
The guidelines remain the same as the Modest Proposal entry back in November, 2006 and my additions in August, 2007.
The last day of submission will be January 31st and the postings will be up by the week of February 10th. .
Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)
Peace,Phil
The guidelines remain the same as the Modest Proposal entry back in November, 2006 and my additions in August, 2007.
The last day of submission will be January 31st and the postings will be up by the week of February 10th. .
Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)
Peace,Phil
Friday, January 16, 2009
Why Christians can't leave history alone?
This week, April DeConick has been reflecting on the different projects of theology and history. That is, theology "attempts to take old authoritative texts and read them doctrinally, with the big question at stake: what does this text say to me about my life as a Christian?", while history is a "pursuit that wants to know what happened in the past". That is, true enough. The concerns of theology and history as fields of studies are different and, if only for clarity, we need to remember this.
Yet, what interests me about this post is Dr. DeConick's perplexed reaction to the Christian practice of treating such things as the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus and the miracles of Jesus as historical fact. Again, one can sympathize with this perplexity because all three of these are, historically speaking, pretty improbable events. History, especially ancient history, rests firmly on assessing the probable reconstructions of past events, so improbability tends to disturb historians and cause them discomfort. To me, this demonstrates the limits of history and of human understanding, but doesn't necessarily rule out the action of God which can and, traditional Christianity would claim, did act exceedingly improbably, if there was a need. I don't think this will comfort Dr. DeConick because this really isn't a historical statement, but rather a theological one.
Ultimately, my intention with this post isn't to argue with Dr. DeConick or anyone else about the priority of history over theology when reading the various canonical and non-canonical Gospels. I recognize that the intellectual honesty of many historians who argue against the priority of canonical over non-canonical texts in explaining early Christianity. While I disagree with them, I hope that I'm aware of when I've placed myself on a historical/theological limb in claiming such events as the incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus as historical events; that is, events which actually happened pretty much in the way that the canonical gospels lay out. My historical proofs for these 'absurd' claims are flimsy at best, but, ultimately, it comes down to trusting these canonical sources not just as theological sources, but as historical ones. That may strike many of my readers as hopelessly naive, but, ultimately, as I've discovered in my apprenticeship in Classics, many decisions around historical reconstruction are based on how far do you trust this or that source. One's answer to that question will determine what version or versions one is likely to use as the basis for one's reconstructions. In the case of the canonical vs. non-canonical materials, Dr. DeConick and I disagree, so, as a result, our reconstructions differ. I can live with that because I really don't know how to adjudicate between these different reconstructions.
Yet, that begs the question of why can't Christian theologians just mind their own business and leave historians to do the history of early Christianity. Let history and theology do their own things. My answer to this question is that traditional Christian theology cannot abandon history because the notion that God intervenes in history is central to its theology ; first in the history of Israel, second, in the life of Jesus and, third, in the life of the church. Christians cannot divorce history from theology for the simple reason that their whole theological system falls apart if they do.
Take the doctrine of the Incarnation as an example. Now, here is an exceedingly improbable event: the God of the universe, somehow, becomes a human baby and spends a short lifetime as a human before being executed in a particularly nasty way. Never mind such mundane supernatural events as the virgin birth, how is this supposed to work historically? When has this happened before? Never. Which is rather the point, isn't it. This is a one-off and dramatic personal intervention of God into the world, designed to start putting it to rights. Sure, there will be a followup, but that just hasn't happened yet. So, how are we supposed to talk about a historical parallel or about historical probability. Yet, this is crucial to explain how God is putting the world to rights again and in explaining God's plan to save humanity and Creation. Ultimately, without an incarnation of God into historical time, there can be no resurrection and, without a resurrection, as Paul notes, our hope is in vain.
I have, of course, opened myself to the criticism that, just because something is theologically necessary, doesn't make it historically so. That is correct, but what I was trying to demonstrate wasn't the historical truth of the Incarnation in such a way that non-Christian scholars will acknowledge it, but rather why Christians simply cannot accept the divorce of theology and history which Dr. DeConick (and others beside her) recommend. Yes, Christians (and not just contemporary ones either) make historical claims which are exceedingly hard to prove. Yes, sometimes Christians overstate their claim. But, ultimately, asking Christians to accept this divorce is asking them to change their theology, not just their history, which is asking rather too much.
In this sense, whether Dr. DeConick realizes it or not, the suggested divorce of theology and history isn't a theologically neutral statement. That is, while I certainly agree that both Christian and non-Christian historians have to respect the same rules of evidence and rigourous historical method, a demand to separate theology and history is a demand to deny one's own spirituality. Respectfully, I decline to do that because I cannot afford the spiritual damage which I know will follow. That, I agree, isn't going to impress secular scholars, but I hope they will understand that what they are asking for something that Christians cannot do; set aside a search for God working in history.
So, ultimately, the answer to the question in my subject line- why Christians can't leave history alone?- is quite simple- they can't. Too much rides on a God who works in history. That is theology, of course, but, I am bold to say, it is also history.
Peace,
Phil
NB: I've gone through and cleaned up some of the language in this entry which was written rather too hastily and edited rather too little. If I've missed any errors, let me know. (19/01/09)
Yet, what interests me about this post is Dr. DeConick's perplexed reaction to the Christian practice of treating such things as the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus and the miracles of Jesus as historical fact. Again, one can sympathize with this perplexity because all three of these are, historically speaking, pretty improbable events. History, especially ancient history, rests firmly on assessing the probable reconstructions of past events, so improbability tends to disturb historians and cause them discomfort. To me, this demonstrates the limits of history and of human understanding, but doesn't necessarily rule out the action of God which can and, traditional Christianity would claim, did act exceedingly improbably, if there was a need. I don't think this will comfort Dr. DeConick because this really isn't a historical statement, but rather a theological one.
Ultimately, my intention with this post isn't to argue with Dr. DeConick or anyone else about the priority of history over theology when reading the various canonical and non-canonical Gospels. I recognize that the intellectual honesty of many historians who argue against the priority of canonical over non-canonical texts in explaining early Christianity. While I disagree with them, I hope that I'm aware of when I've placed myself on a historical/theological limb in claiming such events as the incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus as historical events; that is, events which actually happened pretty much in the way that the canonical gospels lay out. My historical proofs for these 'absurd' claims are flimsy at best, but, ultimately, it comes down to trusting these canonical sources not just as theological sources, but as historical ones. That may strike many of my readers as hopelessly naive, but, ultimately, as I've discovered in my apprenticeship in Classics, many decisions around historical reconstruction are based on how far do you trust this or that source. One's answer to that question will determine what version or versions one is likely to use as the basis for one's reconstructions. In the case of the canonical vs. non-canonical materials, Dr. DeConick and I disagree, so, as a result, our reconstructions differ. I can live with that because I really don't know how to adjudicate between these different reconstructions.
Yet, that begs the question of why can't Christian theologians just mind their own business and leave historians to do the history of early Christianity. Let history and theology do their own things. My answer to this question is that traditional Christian theology cannot abandon history because the notion that God intervenes in history is central to its theology ; first in the history of Israel, second, in the life of Jesus and, third, in the life of the church. Christians cannot divorce history from theology for the simple reason that their whole theological system falls apart if they do.
Take the doctrine of the Incarnation as an example. Now, here is an exceedingly improbable event: the God of the universe, somehow, becomes a human baby and spends a short lifetime as a human before being executed in a particularly nasty way. Never mind such mundane supernatural events as the virgin birth, how is this supposed to work historically? When has this happened before? Never. Which is rather the point, isn't it. This is a one-off and dramatic personal intervention of God into the world, designed to start putting it to rights. Sure, there will be a followup, but that just hasn't happened yet. So, how are we supposed to talk about a historical parallel or about historical probability. Yet, this is crucial to explain how God is putting the world to rights again and in explaining God's plan to save humanity and Creation. Ultimately, without an incarnation of God into historical time, there can be no resurrection and, without a resurrection, as Paul notes, our hope is in vain.
I have, of course, opened myself to the criticism that, just because something is theologically necessary, doesn't make it historically so. That is correct, but what I was trying to demonstrate wasn't the historical truth of the Incarnation in such a way that non-Christian scholars will acknowledge it, but rather why Christians simply cannot accept the divorce of theology and history which Dr. DeConick (and others beside her) recommend. Yes, Christians (and not just contemporary ones either) make historical claims which are exceedingly hard to prove. Yes, sometimes Christians overstate their claim. But, ultimately, asking Christians to accept this divorce is asking them to change their theology, not just their history, which is asking rather too much.
In this sense, whether Dr. DeConick realizes it or not, the suggested divorce of theology and history isn't a theologically neutral statement. That is, while I certainly agree that both Christian and non-Christian historians have to respect the same rules of evidence and rigourous historical method, a demand to separate theology and history is a demand to deny one's own spirituality. Respectfully, I decline to do that because I cannot afford the spiritual damage which I know will follow. That, I agree, isn't going to impress secular scholars, but I hope they will understand that what they are asking for something that Christians cannot do; set aside a search for God working in history.
So, ultimately, the answer to the question in my subject line- why Christians can't leave history alone?- is quite simple- they can't. Too much rides on a God who works in history. That is theology, of course, but, I am bold to say, it is also history.
Peace,
Phil
NB: I've gone through and cleaned up some of the language in this entry which was written rather too hastily and edited rather too little. If I've missed any errors, let me know. (19/01/09)
Monday, January 12, 2009
Patristic Carnival XIX- December, 2008
Happy New Year and welcome to Patristics Carnival XIX. I hope all of you had a blessed Advent and Christmas season and as we move into the Epiphany season, let's look at the last month's patristic offerings.
New Under the Tent: New Patristic Blogs And Announcements.
Michael Bird on the Euangelion blog announces the Call for Papers of the Second British National Patristic Conference.
Front Gate: Introductions to the Fathers
greg on the Philosophia blog deals with some answers about some basic questions about the Fathers.
The Midway: Articles on the Fathers
Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers blog features a Christmas reflection.
Roger Pearse on his self-named blog discusses some of the legends around what the Chronicon Pascale says.
Lindsay on the Female Impersonator blog discusses how difficult it is to dis-entangle patristic insights from their male-gendered language about God and follows up with a post musing on what not using father-son language for God would look like.
Thos on the Ecumenicity blog analyzes the dispute over the date for Easter between Polycrates of Ephesus and Pope Victor I as indicative of orthodox-catholic controversial debate.
XRSe on the tantricmagus blog features an essay by Christopher Etter on non-violence in the early Church.
VC on the Synodos blog considers, in part three of a series, St. Ignatius' views on Real Prescence in the Eucharist.
David Jensen on itsjustdave's Catholic Blog considers St. Maximus Confessor's views on the primacy of Rome.
Justin Richter on The Way into a Far Country blog considers whether the Church Fathers' opinion on justification really matters, discusses St. John Chrysosthom's view of justification,
David on the He Lives blog considers the millenial 'day' and Adam's death according to the Fathers.
Drake on The Weight of Glory blog considers tradition and Scripture.
Father Matthew Jackson on the priestmatthewjackson blog offers a sermon on the occasion of the Orthodox Feast of the Holy Forefathers.
The Blog which is all about the RCiA features a discussion of the patristic basis for mystagogy and its application in today's Catholic Church.
Polycarp on The Church of Jesus Christ blog continues his discussion of Tertullian's On Modesty with parts VII, VIII and IX.
Beth B on the Luke 10:27 blog considers monoergism, Presbyterians and the Eastern Orthodox.
mlcullwell on the John 1:1 blog discusses the Early Church, the Trinity and the Oneness Myth.
Rick Brannon on ricoblog considers some parallels beween First Timothy and the Similitudes in the Shepherd of Hermas.
The Marketplace: Book Reviews
Steve on Triablogue considers some contradictions of the Catholic concept of unanimous consent of the Fathers as the basis of an authoritative argument.
Evan on the clavi non defixi blog gives a list of books included in the Centre for Early Christian Studies' (Australia's premier department for things patristic) series on the Fathers.
Pr. Stephan on the Patristica blog features a review of J. . Petruccione (ed.), Nova et Vetera. Patristic Studies in Honor of Thomas Patrick Halton
Reformed Reader on the Reformed Reader blog features a review of M.W. Holmes' edition of the Apostolic Fathers.
Rich Leonardi on the Ten Reasons blog offers a brief review of Pope Benedict's book on the Fathers.
Erma on the Christian Books: Church History blog reviews Robert Webber's Ancient-Future Worship: Proclaiming and Enacting God's Narrative .
Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog reviews the second edition of Frank Williams' translation of the first book of the Panarion of Epiphanes of Salamis.
Tim Trautman on the Army of Martyrs blog reviews Henry Chadwick's, The Early Church.
Exhibition Place: Biographies of the Fathers
No items this month.
The Rodeo: Patristic catenae
The NT Administrator on the Nicene Truth blog offers a patristic catena of pre-Augustinian Marian citations.
The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations and Summaries
Seumas MacDonald on the Compliant Subversity blog features a summary of Tertullian's Trinitarian work, Against Praxeas, a summary of Novatian's de trinitate,
The Celesital Fundie on The Patristic Page blog features a translation of Theodore of Mopsuestia's Commentary on the Nicene Creed (translated by Alphonse Mangani)
On this blog, I feature the next installment of Sulpicius Severus' Life of St. Martin.
The Talmudic Tabernacle: Christianity and Judaism in the Ancient World
Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog continues his series on Jacob Neusner's Oral Torah with parts 13, 14 and the epilogue.
The Apocryphal Aisle: Christian Apocrypha
Tony Chartrand-Burke on the Apocryphicity reports on the Secret Mark session at the SBL.
April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospel blog reflects on the Judas forum at SBL, on a 'Judas' gem, discusses the dating of ancient sources, and discusses an article she wrote on Valentinian sex.
That's it for the patristic month that was. If you can be a host for the next carnival, let me know.
Peace,
Phil
New Under the Tent: New Patristic Blogs And Announcements.
Michael Bird on the Euangelion blog announces the Call for Papers of the Second British National Patristic Conference.
Front Gate: Introductions to the Fathers
greg on the Philosophia blog deals with some answers about some basic questions about the Fathers.
The Midway: Articles on the Fathers
Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers blog features a Christmas reflection.
Roger Pearse on his self-named blog discusses some of the legends around what the Chronicon Pascale says.
Lindsay on the Female Impersonator blog discusses how difficult it is to dis-entangle patristic insights from their male-gendered language about God and follows up with a post musing on what not using father-son language for God would look like.
Thos on the Ecumenicity blog analyzes the dispute over the date for Easter between Polycrates of Ephesus and Pope Victor I as indicative of orthodox-catholic controversial debate.
XRSe on the tantricmagus blog features an essay by Christopher Etter on non-violence in the early Church.
VC on the Synodos blog considers, in part three of a series, St. Ignatius' views on Real Prescence in the Eucharist.
David Jensen on itsjustdave's Catholic Blog considers St. Maximus Confessor's views on the primacy of Rome.
Justin Richter on The Way into a Far Country blog considers whether the Church Fathers' opinion on justification really matters, discusses St. John Chrysosthom's view of justification,
David on the He Lives blog considers the millenial 'day' and Adam's death according to the Fathers.
Drake on The Weight of Glory blog considers tradition and Scripture.
Father Matthew Jackson on the priestmatthewjackson blog offers a sermon on the occasion of the Orthodox Feast of the Holy Forefathers.
The Blog which is all about the RCiA features a discussion of the patristic basis for mystagogy and its application in today's Catholic Church.
Polycarp on The Church of Jesus Christ blog continues his discussion of Tertullian's On Modesty with parts VII, VIII and IX.
Beth B on the Luke 10:27 blog considers monoergism, Presbyterians and the Eastern Orthodox.
mlcullwell on the John 1:1 blog discusses the Early Church, the Trinity and the Oneness Myth.
Rick Brannon on ricoblog considers some parallels beween First Timothy and the Similitudes in the Shepherd of Hermas.
The Marketplace: Book Reviews
Steve on Triablogue considers some contradictions of the Catholic concept of unanimous consent of the Fathers as the basis of an authoritative argument.
Evan on the clavi non defixi blog gives a list of books included in the Centre for Early Christian Studies' (Australia's premier department for things patristic) series on the Fathers.
Pr. Stephan on the Patristica blog features a review of J. . Petruccione (ed.), Nova et Vetera. Patristic Studies in Honor of Thomas Patrick Halton
Reformed Reader on the Reformed Reader blog features a review of M.W. Holmes' edition of the Apostolic Fathers.
Rich Leonardi on the Ten Reasons blog offers a brief review of Pope Benedict's book on the Fathers.
Erma on the Christian Books: Church History blog reviews Robert Webber's Ancient-Future Worship: Proclaiming and Enacting God's Narrative .
Nick Norelli on the Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth blog reviews Edward R. Hardy's Christology of the Later Fathers.
Eric Sowell on the Archaic Christianity blog considers the first chapters of Ramsey MacMullen's Voting About God in the Early Church Councils, considers St. Augustine's views on the Seputagint,Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog reviews the second edition of Frank Williams' translation of the first book of the Panarion of Epiphanes of Salamis.
Tim Trautman on the Army of Martyrs blog reviews Henry Chadwick's, The Early Church.
Exhibition Place: Biographies of the Fathers
No items this month.
The Rodeo: Patristic catenae
The NT Administrator on the Nicene Truth blog offers a patristic catena of pre-Augustinian Marian citations.
The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations and Summaries
Seumas MacDonald on the Compliant Subversity blog features a summary of Tertullian's Trinitarian work, Against Praxeas, a summary of Novatian's de trinitate,
The Celesital Fundie on The Patristic Page blog features a translation of Theodore of Mopsuestia's Commentary on the Nicene Creed (translated by Alphonse Mangani)
On this blog, I feature the next installment of Sulpicius Severus' Life of St. Martin.
The Talmudic Tabernacle: Christianity and Judaism in the Ancient World
Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog continues his series on Jacob Neusner's Oral Torah with parts 13, 14 and the epilogue.
The Apocryphal Aisle: Christian Apocrypha
Tony Chartrand-Burke on the Apocryphicity reports on the Secret Mark session at the SBL.
April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospel blog reflects on the Judas forum at SBL, on a 'Judas' gem, discusses the dating of ancient sources, and discusses an article she wrote on Valentinian sex.
That's it for the patristic month that was. If you can be a host for the next carnival, let me know.
Peace,
Phil
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Merry Christmas and Call for Submissions for Patristics Carnival XIX
I can't believe I'm posting this on Christmas Eve. Ah well, there is still a week before the end of the month and I'm calling for patristic entries for Patristics Carnival XIX. This month, we're back here at hyperekperissou.
The guidelines remain the same as the Modest Proposal entry back in November, 2006 and my additions in August, 2007.
The last day of submission will be December 31 and the postings will be up by the week of January 10th. (I'll be away until the 3rd).
Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Peace,Phil
The guidelines remain the same as the Modest Proposal entry back in November, 2006 and my additions in August, 2007.
The last day of submission will be December 31 and the postings will be up by the week of January 10th. (I'll be away until the 3rd).
Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Peace,Phil
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Doing Advent
Advent is time of waiting and expectation. All of us who attend liturgical churches know that and all of us know how much a challenge that waiting is amid the craziness of the Christmas season these days. For me, the weeks leading up to Advent and Advent itself involve marking, lesson preparation and the standard running-around which life as a teacher entails. By the time Advent comes around, I'm usually worn to a frazzle and trying to squeeze out the last reserves just to get done what I need to get done before the Christmas holidays really begin.
I don't think this overwhelmed feeling is uncommon at all. All of us are busy this time of year and Christmas preparations and socializing just add to that load. It is hard to find time to wait quietly and to reflect on the coming of Jesus, both on that night more than two thousand years ago and in the coming age (whenever that is). That is the dilemma that I found myself in this year...again.
As Advent started this year, I found myself catching up marking from a busy November, taking on an additional task at school (which I should never have taken on--when will I learn!) and I was getting very cranky. Two or three days into Advent, I was muttering under my breath that I didn't feel like I would get any Advent this year. That woke me up. Something was very wrong with my attitude and with me, if I was feeling that way so early in Advent.
That was when a thought came to my head: why not just leave work at work, do what I can and take Advent back for myself? Sounds simple doesn't it? Simple and, frankly, a little scary, given how behind I was feeling. How was I supposed to get work done and have Advent? Won't I just fall further behind and get more stressed, instead of relieving my stress by getting the work out of the way, even if it meant flogging myself to get things done? Given the way that my brain works, that actually made sense to me and made the decision that I was making seem a little crazy. I still made it, but with some trepidation.
So, what happened? I'd love to say that I was perfect in my resolution and didn't bring work home (I did a couple nights towards the end of the period, but only less than an hour's worth of work each night). I'd love to say that I had spiritual epiphanies each night (many nights I fell asleep reading or watching TV). I'd love to say that I had a fresh understanding of Christ child and the incarnation (see the previous parenthesis).
What did happen is that, instead of my stress increasing, I found it dropping and my productivity at school so much greater because I knew the work needed to get done there. I found I could take the time out to pray and to reflect (at least, before I fell asleep) on what Christ has meant to my life. I found I had time for my wife and son which was wonderful. I found I could be grateful for the good things in my life and to have compassion for others around me in a way I don't think I could have without that time. All those things are precious gifts and slowing down for Advent was what enabled me to receive them peacefully.
So, as Advent winds to a close, I'm still trying to keep a peaceful Advent. I still have some school work I want to get done. I still have many other tasks clamouring for my attention, but I still want to take the time out to wait for the coming of the Lord. There is always more things to do and there are more and better ways to keep Advent than the simple action I took this year. Still, I hope this is a start to a deepening of my Advent experiences. With God's help, I hope that the Advent season will be a time for us to prepare ourselves to meet Christ again; in prayer, in those we help and in those around us.
Peace,
Phil
I don't think this overwhelmed feeling is uncommon at all. All of us are busy this time of year and Christmas preparations and socializing just add to that load. It is hard to find time to wait quietly and to reflect on the coming of Jesus, both on that night more than two thousand years ago and in the coming age (whenever that is). That is the dilemma that I found myself in this year...again.
As Advent started this year, I found myself catching up marking from a busy November, taking on an additional task at school (which I should never have taken on--when will I learn!) and I was getting very cranky. Two or three days into Advent, I was muttering under my breath that I didn't feel like I would get any Advent this year. That woke me up. Something was very wrong with my attitude and with me, if I was feeling that way so early in Advent.
That was when a thought came to my head: why not just leave work at work, do what I can and take Advent back for myself? Sounds simple doesn't it? Simple and, frankly, a little scary, given how behind I was feeling. How was I supposed to get work done and have Advent? Won't I just fall further behind and get more stressed, instead of relieving my stress by getting the work out of the way, even if it meant flogging myself to get things done? Given the way that my brain works, that actually made sense to me and made the decision that I was making seem a little crazy. I still made it, but with some trepidation.
So, what happened? I'd love to say that I was perfect in my resolution and didn't bring work home (I did a couple nights towards the end of the period, but only less than an hour's worth of work each night). I'd love to say that I had spiritual epiphanies each night (many nights I fell asleep reading or watching TV). I'd love to say that I had a fresh understanding of Christ child and the incarnation (see the previous parenthesis).
What did happen is that, instead of my stress increasing, I found it dropping and my productivity at school so much greater because I knew the work needed to get done there. I found I could take the time out to pray and to reflect (at least, before I fell asleep) on what Christ has meant to my life. I found I had time for my wife and son which was wonderful. I found I could be grateful for the good things in my life and to have compassion for others around me in a way I don't think I could have without that time. All those things are precious gifts and slowing down for Advent was what enabled me to receive them peacefully.
So, as Advent winds to a close, I'm still trying to keep a peaceful Advent. I still have some school work I want to get done. I still have many other tasks clamouring for my attention, but I still want to take the time out to wait for the coming of the Lord. There is always more things to do and there are more and better ways to keep Advent than the simple action I took this year. Still, I hope this is a start to a deepening of my Advent experiences. With God's help, I hope that the Advent season will be a time for us to prepare ourselves to meet Christ again; in prayer, in those we help and in those around us.
Peace,
Phil
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)