Thoughts on Antiquity, Patristics, putting things online, information access, and more
Quite by accident I see that a visit to a Coptic monastery at pilgrimage time features in a BBC programme, “The Frankincense trail.” Presented by Kate Humble, episode 3 includes scenes of wild enthusiasm to the point of blows being exchanged as thousands of Coptics attend the ceremony. It’s very cheering stuff to watch.
The rest of the programme is mainly about Egypt, and should encourage quite a few young people to long to visit!
A note in the Patristics Carnival 27 pointed me to an article online written by David Cloud, discussing whether the Fathers are a door to Rome.
Looking at the article, we quickly see that it is written in response to a particular situation, where US Christian writers have suggested that:
“The early Fathers can bring us back to what is common and help us get behind our various traditions … Here is where our unity lies. … evangelicals need to go beyond talk about the unity of the church to experience it through an attitude of acceptance of the whole church and an entrance into dialogue with the Orthodox, Catholic, and other Protestant bodies”
David Cloud is quite right to query such a statement, because it seems very confused. The consensus of teaching found in the Fathers of the Church is considered authoritative on matters of doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church. No doubt someone will be able to give us a reference on this.
But no Protestant holds such a view. Luther came to the view that Councils of the Church have erred, and do err — thinking of the Council of Constance –, and that no reliance can be placed on them; that only Scripture can be trusted as a source of doctrine. That is the reformed position.
How then, can any form of unity be found in perusing works that one side considers inspired, at least where they agree, while the other considers as merely works written by Christians who happened to live a long time ago? (Indeed Protestants tend to look more suspiciously on all post-Nicene writers). For we can only consider the consensus of the Fathers as divinely inspired if we have already agreed that Roman Catholicism is true, together with all the doctrines that are superadded onto the New Testament, and that gospel-based Christianity is a mistake. Whether or not this is so — which I don’t propose to consider here — this is not a point of agreement, but the opposite. The idea is confused.
David Cloud is right to dismiss this. But the article then goes down what in my opinion is a blind alley. He attempts to show that many of the Fathers held views which would be considered strange today. He is right, of course, but the selection is misleading. Matters which the gospels do not clearly set forth had to be considered by those who came after the apostles, usually in the face of heretical deceptions, and some form of policy for Christians to be set forth. Not all the views reached were considered correct in the end. But the article overstates its point when it says:
The fact is that the “early Fathers” were mostly heretics!
This as stated is the reverse of the truth. The heretic, then as now, is guided by convenience. Whatever sounds pleasing to the ear, as the apostle put it, leads such men astray. Again and again, when we look at the teachings of the gnostics we see them prefer some fable of their own invention when faced with a gospel teaching that was embarassing. Jesus himself, because of his disreputable execution as a criminal, was embarassing to Christians and a source of amused jeering to pagans. Marcion deals with this by smoothly asserting that Jesus was a phantasm, not really crucified. Other similar stories were woven by heretics, all with the same end, of pleasing. Sacrifice to the gods? Well, why not? It could be very unpleasant not to! Convenience doesn’t do “unpleasant”.
The early Christians did not do this. They died, not to do this. The commitment to Christ that we ask of every new convert today, to accept Jesus into their life as Lord of their life, is the same commitment that Paul made on the road to Damascus; it is the same commitment that Justin Martyr made on the beach where he met the Christian philosopher; it is the same commitment that Origen made, and paid for with his blood. Convenience and nominalism are not keynotes of their writings. They intended to live by the gospel, mistakes and all, and to die with it. So should we all.
The article then goes on to list some of the stranger views held by early Christian writers. But again the author writes incautiously. In his eagerness to suggest that patristic teaching is not that of the gospels – only partly true – he ends up suggesting that the Fathers did not teach what Christians today call Christianity (and non-Christians, when they think of Christianity). This is nonsense, of course. We have only limited access to second century texts today — so much has perished, and nearly all the material that has survived is addressed either to apologetics or works addressing one or another heresy. We cannot stand in the church and listen to John’s disciple Polycarp preaching, for his works are nearly all lost.
But to argue, therefore, that some wild discontinuity came into existence between 70 AD and 100 AD seems unwarranted. The early Christians themselves are not aware of such a discontinuity.
There is change, of course; the apostles are all dead by 100 AD. The “living voice” beloved of Papias grows silent, although Polycarp is still preaching in Rome and converting heretics by telling of what the apostle John said and did as late as 155 AD. At the start of this period, the books of the New Testament are only just being written, or collected; at the end of it, Justin is referring to “memoirs” of the apostles, and as soon as we can see the canon, it looks very like that of today. The process whereby the church was able to move from oral authority derived from apostles to using their teaching in written form is unknown to us, and occurs in that period, and it is futile to speculate about it. But these changes, real as they are, are in some sense illusory. The apostles themselves did not invent doctrine. They preached what Christ had taught them. There are no anecdotes of the apostle John bringing out teachings which are unknown to us, for instance. The New Testament contains the apostolic preaching, and churches that had it were more firmly grounded than those which did not.
So why do we find churches with bishops and deacons rather than apostles and prophets? The reasons come to us clearly enough in Ignatius and Tertullian; that the heretics refused to listen to the apostolic teachings, selecting whichever bits pleased them and finding excuses to ignore the rest. So it is today. The early Christians found that arguing with them only resulted in a headache, or stomach-ache, in the words of Tertullian, and no certain victory or result. It was quite simply easier, more effective, to appeal to the fact that the church of Ephesus was founded by the apostle John, and that what it taught was derived fairly directly from that source; that churches that followed the apostolic teaching were all in communion with each other; and if you were not in, you were out. It was a simple, practical way to evade the endless text-twisting and ensure that Christian supported each other.
Of course we know today that this could lead to evils such as the renaissance papacy of Alexander VI, Rodrigo Borgia. We know that it could become a power structure. The reasons why protestants objected to the medieval Catholic church are all valid, and it is a great pity that they were not listened to. We all know what men who seek to be bishops are capable of; and if we don’t, the “bishops” of the Episcopalian Church in the USA at the moment are giving us an object lesson of hate, selfishness, hypocrisy and dishonesty. But we should not project this back onto the early church, where “episcopos” meant “overseer”, not a “Prince of the Church”, decorated with the ineffable sublimities of Byzantine church-speak. As Tertullian remarked, the church is not a conclave of bishops, but the spiritual assembly of spiritual men. This, of course, is not entirely compatible with Roman Catholic teaching!
When I look at the Fathers, I see people like me. I see them living in a society somewhat different to ours, but also somewhat similar. I see God acting in their lives. I see men turning from sin, and seeking their salvation. They make mistakes, they write books intended for their contemporaries, some of which have reached us. (Their works are also of tremendous interest historically, and as a guide to church history, but that is not important for this post).
Does an interest in the fathers lead to Rome? It certainly can do. There have been no lack of people who ached to join the universal Catholic church of ancient times and found themselves led to Rome. The Oxford Movement Anglicans edited the fathers, and many of them crossed the Tiber. But it is telling that they mostly edited post-Nicene fathers; Tertullian, at least, would hardly have suited their purpose.
I do not see that the Fathers point to Rome. They are, instead, themselves. The differences between modern Roman Catholic teachings and those of the Fathers seem considerable, not least because Roman Catholic teaching has added to what it received from that source. Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Mary is not to be found in Ignatius, Irenaeus, or Tertullian! (Catholic reasons for considering tradition and elaboration to be the work of the Holy Spirit are another issue; but not the subject now) Protestants remember that our Lord did not endorse the actions of the pharisees in adding the tradition of men to the teachings of God. Tertullian makes plain, in the introduction to Adversus Praxean, where he draws up the formula of the Trinity, that he is NOT introducing an innovation.
The fathers provide us with historical evidence of Christian origins. They provide us with the means to refute the cruder falsehoods that we see atheists circulate on the web. They provide us with clear proof that some academic histories of Christianity are substantially false and unfaithful to the facts, which only the Fathers provide to modern men. In spiritual terms they can be disappointing; the apostolic fathers collection does not make my heart warm, I must say. True spirit-filled gospel faith often leaves only ashes in written form, as I know myself. The reality was to be there, in the presence of God, and is not to be captured in words. In all this, they can serve Catholic and Protestant alike, and we can value them. But a gateway to Rome? A path to Christian union? I do not see it.
The draft of the 9th homily on Ezekiel by Origen has arrived from the translator, and is excellent, with little to do on it. This homily also could probably be preached today, just as it is.
The homilies give us a picture of Origen the preacher, a humble, learned man, eager to help explain the difficult places of scripture in ways that everyone could understand. Instead of the airy speculation that we associate with the name we see a practical man.
It is remarkable to me that these works, easily the most accessible of his works, have remained untranslated until today.
Maureen has left a note to tell me of another site where bits of the fathers are being translated. It’s here. The author is John Litteral, who appears to be translating extracts from ancient biblical commentaries. If so, this is very welcome! I’ve not managed to find my way around the site yet to be sure.
There is also a collection of links to the fathers. Among the links is one to a site by Gary Anderson and a translation of portions of Ambrose’s De paradiso, here. As far as I knew this was untranslated.
Heraclius has conquered the Persians, and they have killed their king Qavad and are also suffering an outbreak of cholera. Now read on. Dates in [] are the era of Diocletian.
[276] After him many kings reigned – men and women – until the reign of Yezdegerd, the son of Kesra (A)Brawez, who began to prevail at the age of 25 (or 15?). Abu Bakr sent his armies into Iraq and Khalid went down to Hira. Their dignitaries came out to meet him and he gave them the `Aman and concluded a Solh (peace in return for payment) with them for 70 thousand dirhams. This was the first tribute in Iraq and the first money to be brought from Iraq to Abu Bakr. Then the Arabs joined with him (= Abu Bakr). Then he sent ‘Amr ibn al-‘As and Surahbil ibn Husna and Abi ‘Obeyda ibn al Garrah and Yazid ibn abi Sufian — he gave them the army (whose commander was ‘Amr ibn al-‘As) — and ordered them to go in the direction of Sam on the way to Ayla. And he gave them the following instructions:
— Not to kill any gray-haired old man, woman or little child;
— Not to attack the wounded;
— Not to chop down any fruit-tree;
— Not to destroy any building;
— Not to set fire to any palm trees nor to cut the bark (so that they would die);
— Not to kill any sheep or cow.They went to a village called Tadun, a city of Gaza near the Hijaz, and there encamped. It was reported to them that the armies of Heraclius were gathered in the city of Gaza. Heraclius himself was then in Damascus. ‘Amr ibn al-‘As wrote to Abu Bakr and (begged) for reinforcements. And Abu Bakr wrote to Khalid ibn al-Walid (and ordered him) to go with all his followers to ‘Amr ibn al-‘As and provide him assistance. Khalid marched there on the desert road, to Hira, and reached ‘Amr ibn al-‘As. The armies of Heraclius had based themselves in Gaza. When (the Arabs) reached Gaza, the patrician, the leader of the army of Heraclius – sent to the Army of the Muslims (a messenger) and asked them to send one of their military leaders. They said to ‘Amr ibn al-‘As: This is your (task)! ‘Amr disguised himself, and the gates of Gaza were opened and he entered.
When he stood before the patrician, he received him well and said (to him): What drives you to our country and what do you want? ‘Amr ibn al-‘As said to him: “Our Master (= leader) ordered us to fight you until you accept our religion: you will be due what is due to us, and you will then be our brothers, and we will no longer allow ourselves to harm or threaten you. If you reject this, pay us a tribute that pleases us and you, every year, as long as we and you live. Then we will fight for you against all who attack you, or in any way jeopardize your lands, towns, or wealth. We will do it instead of you, because you will be on our conscience and will have an agreement from us for this. If you (also) reject this, there remains only fighting with us with the sword until we all die, or we get from you what we want.”
Next time we’ll see how the Roman patrician responded to these arrogant “terms”.
Interestingly it looks as if the first Islamic army was quite small, and relied on the Arabs outside Arabia joining them, doubtless in hope of plunder.
Get it from here.
I’ve just discovered a way to find a lot of interesting things at Archive.org. In the search try things like this:
Loads of copies of works, albeit not always clearly identified, often in other languages besides English. Marvellous.
[ 273 ] In the 11th year of the reign of Heraclius died the Prophet (Mohammad), so-called, on Monday, when two nights of the month of Rabi` I. had passed, in the eleventh year of the Higra. He was buried in the house where he had died. This was the house of `Aisha. His illness lasted13 days. He died at the age of 63 and left no children, with the exception of Fatima, who died 40 days after him; it is also said: after 70 days.
[ 274 ] In the 11th year of the reign of Heraclius, (H)Onorios became Patriarch in Rome. He lasted 18 years and died.
[ 275 ] When Kesra (A)Brawez came into his city and saw, what murder and devastation Heraclius had wrought, he was attacked by great sorrow; but he did not change his cruel behaviour in any way. His days (government) became ever heavier for the people, and these were with their patience at and end (and said): He is a messenger of misfortune! In his time the Persians were killed and their countries devastated. They put him aside, after 38 years, and placed in his place his son Qabad, who called himself Sirawayh. He was the son of Mariam, the daughter of Maurice, the king of the Romans. He preferred justice and showed it to those who had suffered injury until then. He killed 18 of the children of his father, who had set themselves against him because of his mother. All his remaining relatives fled. Then he said: I will abolish the tax, so that all the people may experience my justice and my benevolence. Some time thereafter cholera attacked the inhabitants of his realm and the majority died. (Qabab) also died and his father Kesra with him. His rule lasted 8 months.
(From Eutychius / Sa`id ibn Bitriq, ca. 940 AD. The numbers are the years of the era of Diocletian)
Just to let you know that Homily on Ezechiel 7 has been done and paid for. I’ve also seen the draft of homily 8, which will be done soon I think. The “Tammuz” fragment has been revised and is paid for also. So some very good progress.
The chap who agreed to translate the recently discovered 60% of Chrysostom’s Oration 2 against the Jews has written to tell me that he has broken his ankle and can’t get around much.
No progress on any of the Arabic since last time. The lady who knows about the Coptic Eusebius has told me that she’s very busy, as is no doubt the case.
I’ve spent today wondering if the blog had a virus. Fortunately not; it just had a bad plugin installed (phew!).
The New International Version of the bible is pretty much the standard translation used by more Christians than any other, although probably still less than 50%. The standing of the translation was badly damaged by an attempt to produce a version revised in accordance with political correctness. Known as the TNIV, this version caused immense offence.
I learn today that the copyright owners intend to produce a new revision of the NIV itself, in 2011. Suggestions for the new version can be sent to nivbible2011.com, apparently. The press release is here. It makes no reference to the TNIV debacle.
A USA Today report here gives more details, and Crosswalk.com gives more again. Various comments were made during the press conference, in response to a question and answer session:
“Whatever its strengths were, the TNIV divided the evangelical Christian community,” Moe Girkins, Zondervan’s president, said. “As we launch this new NIV in 2011, we will discontinue putting out new products with the TNIV.”
The silence in the press release, and in the speeches given, this all suggests to me that the TNIV is being abandoned because it failed, not because the owners think they did wrong. This means, of course, that they may try again. I doubt the NIV will survive further attempts to corrupt it.
When I think about the NIV, and the idea of revising it, I frankly feel nervous. I find that emotionally I don’t trust the revisers not to try to sneak an extra-biblical ideology into the text. I suspect a lot of people feel the same.
So what is to be done? If the owners of the text are serious about abandoning this enterprise, they need to take some serious steps. First they need to acknowledge publicly that what was done was wrong; and I see no signs of this. Next they need to change the composition of the board that oversees what happens, because those who did wrong once (wittingly or otherwise) will do it again. Until we see change, how can we have confidence in the board? Thirdly, they might consider simply leaving the NIV alone. There is no pressing need to tinker, tinker, tinker. In fact such tinkering damages the translation. It would be better – far better – to leave the translation alone for 15 or 20 years, and get the text established.
The whole business is very, very sad. I grieve for what has happened, for how it has allowed the unbelievers to triumph over Zion.
To me, the whole business and the way it has worked out smells strongly of the Pit. Who benefits from destroying the credibility of what was fast becoming the standard English translation? The Body of Christ does not benefit. No man seeking salvation benefits. But perhaps Hell does. Those who seek the ruin of us all do seem to benefit. Their cause is advanced. The dissention among previously close friends, the creation of mistrust and anger, the perception that the gospel is whatever people say it is… surely these are things that must be dear to the heart of the Enemy of us all?
It is easy to write as if those who chose to do this evil thing did so intentionally and open-eyed. But I see no signs of this. I think that it is most unlikely that they had any such intention, or intended to produce a “politically correct” bible at all! On the contrary, I suspect they were led, step by step, believing that they were really doing the right thing, that God would be pleased and the gospel served, as if by an angel of light. They probably never realised that a line had been crossed. They probably never intentionally crossed it, but were led on from one thing to another, softly, gently, without ill-will.
Satan loves to do this to us. He loves to draw us on, to seduce us, without allowing us to ever quite realise that all these harmless little steps really amount to a massive change of direction which takes us out of our accustomed orbit around the Son and into the darkness. Those approaching a cliff may do so by sleepy little steps. But one of those harmless little steps will not be so harmless. Suddenly the cliff-edge gives way. Waking, we find, to our horror, that we are falling, falling towards the rocks, into sin and death. Above us, as we fall in fear and misery, with certainty of pain ahead, there is demonic laughter at us.
This, I think, is what may have happened to the NIV team. If so they weren’t the first, and won’t be the last. But the first need is to recognise that they have been led into a serious sin, to repent, and take measures to deal with it. Just going on, as if nothing had happened, will not serve, and will make things worse.